DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Critical Review about the Character of Communication among Participating Stakeholders in the Improving Alley Landscapes in Residential Neighborhoods Project

주거지골목길 경관개선사업에서 참여 이해관계자의 의사소통 특성

  • Kim, Yun-Geum (Wul Landscape Architecture Office) ;
  • Lee, Ai-Ran (Dept. of Environmental Landscape Architecture, Cheongju University)
  • Received : 2015.11.15
  • Accepted : 2016.04.06
  • Published : 2016.04.30

Abstract

This paper discusses the character of communication among participating stakeholders in the Improving Alley Landscapes in Residential Neighborhoods project. The participation of diverse stakeholders in conventional urban redevelopment is considered to delay and complicate the progress of a project. However, in urban regeneration, a field-oriented operating system and collaboration between diverse stakeholders is considered critical to building a sustainable community. A stakeholder is defined as "a person or organization that can influence decision-making or be influenced by it." This paper uses a case study to examine what types of stakeholders participate and what communicative processes and ideas are shared among them. Six neighborhoods were selected out of a total of 26 of Seoul's 2014 Improving Alley Landscapes project. This research was developed through interviews and a review of the literature. The character of communication among stakeholders in the case study is as follows. Firstly, the administration initiated the project but did not show leadership. This was caused by a gap in understanding about the project between city and borough administrations, Further, the city administration lacked experience with projects that placed an emphasis on fieldwork. Tongjand and Banjang, at ancillary institutions, acted as spokespersons and helped people in the community to understand the administrative process. However, because they led communication and used personal relationships to ensure they communicated effectively, the communication process had limits from the perspective of democratic process. Diverse stakeholders expressed their opinions in the public sphere and communicated about them using diverse media. Finally, experts produced the output, facilitated communication, and mediated in conflicts. Because new experts acted as facilitators and mediators, there was a great deal of trial and error. This project has particular significance: Seoul's city government deals with urban space rather than parks and green space, which are limited by boundaries; and whether "green" can be used for urban renovation was tested by several landscape architects, who sought to identify a new role in urban renovation, namely, the role of landscape and landscape architecture. However, the project has some limitations, including an insufficiently detailed project plan, a lack of common understanding among stakeholders, and a short timeframe. A number of stakeholders overcame these limitations to a certain degree. Officials of the Borough and the Dong managed the project and resolved civil complaints. Experts provided special information, and contributed to the design and construction of improvements.

과거 전면재개발 방식과는 달리 최근 도시재생에서는 현장중심의 협력적 운영체계 및 이해관계자의 참여와 파트너십이 성공 요소로 여겨지고 있다. 도시재생 실행 수단의 하나인 경관개선사업에 있어서도 개선 과정 중의 이해관계자간 의사소통에 관심을 갖기 시작했다. 의사소통의 과정은 내용(경관의 변화)과 분리될 수 없기 때문이다. 이러한 맥락에서 본 연구는 서울시 주거지 경관개선사업에 어떠한 이해관계자가 참여했고 어떠한 의사소통 과정을 가졌는지를 살펴보았다. 구체적 사례로는 2013년 서울시에서 진행한 '서울 꽃으로 피다' 사업 중 '주민 스스로 가꾸는 골목길'을 다루었다. 사례 연구에서 검토된 이해관계자의 의사소통적 특성을 살펴보면 먼저 행정의 경우, 사업의 이니셔티브를 가졌지만 리더십을 발휘하지는 못했다. 이는 서울시와 각 구청간의 사업에 대한 이해의 차이, 현장 중심적 사업에서의 행정 역할에 대한 경험 부족 등에서 비롯되었다. 반면, 행정의 보조기관인 지역의 통 반장은 주민들의 대변인으로서 역할을 했을 뿐만 아니라 주민들에게 행정적 절차의 특성을 알리고 대응하도록 도와주었다. 그러나 이들 중심으로 그리고 이들과 주민간의 개인적 관계 속에서 의사소통이 이루어지면서 다양한 이해관계자의 의견이 외부화되고, 이를 다양한 방식으로 논의하는 의사소통의 민주성에는 오히려 한계가 있었다. 마지막으로 전문가는 골목길 경관 개선이라는 결과물 산출자의 역할뿐만 아니라 단계별 이해관계자들의 소통의 촉진과 갈등 해결 등 의사소통 촉진자로서의 역할을 수행했다. 전문가들은 이러한 역할을 새롭게 받아들였다. 대상지별 의사소통의 특성을 살펴보면 주택의 형태, 거주기간, 주택 소유 여부와 세입 방식에 따라 의사소통의 적극성에 있어 차이를 보였다. 본 연구에서 발견한 바를 세 가지로 정리할 수 있다. 첫 번째, 주거지의 특성과 인적 구성이 의사소통 과정에 영향을 주고, 이는 궁극적으로 결과물에도 영향을 준다는 것을 볼 수 있었다. 두 번째는 사업의 구조와 이해관계자들의 역할과의 관계에 대한 것이다. 본 연구에서 다룬 사업은 일상공간을 대상으로 함에도 불구하고 주민들의 필요에 따라 시작하기 보다는 사업의 기획과 진행 등 이니셔티브를 행정이 가졌다. 세 번째, 다수의 조경설계가들이 하나의 프로젝트에 참여하면서 전문가의 새로운 역할을 시도해 보았다는데 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A., H. de la Cueva, S. Diaz, D. Melgarejo, G. Alcantar, M. J. Solares, G. Grobet and G. Cruz-Bello(2004) Environmental conflicts and nature reserves: Redesigning Sierra San Pedro Martir National Park, Mexico. Biological Conservation 117: 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00265-9
  2. Brookfield, S. D.(1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Bryson, M. J.(2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Management Review 6(1): 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
  4. Burton, P., R. Goodlad, J. Croft, J. Abbott, A. Hastings, G. Macdonald and T. Slater(2004) What works in community involvement in areabased initiatives? A systematic review of the literature. Home Office Online Reprot 53/04. London: Home Office.
  5. Cosgrove, W. J. and F. R. Rijsberman(2000) World Water Vision - Making Water Everybody's Business. London: Earthscan Publication.
  6. Eden, C. and F. Ackermann(1988) Making Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. Fischer, F.(2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. London: Duke University Press.
  8. Freeman, R. E.(1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
  9. Gray, C.(2008)Working TowardsMore Effective and Sustainable Brownfield Revitalization Policies; REVIT Stakeholder Engagement - a toolkit.
  10. Hamdi, N. and R. Goethert(1997) Action Planning for Cities: A Guide to Community Practice. New York: John Wiley.
  11. Handley, J., E. Griffiths, S. Hill and J. Howe(1998) Land restoration using an ecologically informed and participative approach. in H. Fox, H. Moore and A. Mcintosh, eds., Land Reclamation: Archiving Sustainable Benefits. Rotterdam : Balkema. pp. 171-185.
  12. Kim, Y. G and M. Roe(2007) A study on partnerships in the development of parks in UK. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 35(2): 4-11.
  13. Kim, W. Y.(2013) Resident participatory business seeing from the perspective of Eunpyeong-gu's Maeul community. The Korean Association for Public Society 3(2): 5-35.
  14. Kim, Y. S.(2006) A Study on the Improvement of Korean Basic Administrative Units(Tong.Ban). Master's Degree Dissertation, Kyumg Pook National University. Korea.
  15. Korea Urban Regeneration Cluster(2012) Plan of NewUrban Regeneration.
  16. Kothari, U.(2001) Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In B.l Cooke and U. Kothari, eds., Participation: the New Tyranny. New York: Zed Books. pp. 139-152.
  17. Kwon, J. J., J. H. Jo, W. S. Jeon and H. Y. Hwang(2012) Analyses on the influences of the governance participants in the decision making process of urban regeneration project of Jungang-dong, CheongJu-city. Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association 25(2): 325-343.
  18. Kwon, J. J., D. H. Kim and H. Y. Hwang(2011) A dynamic analysis on the influences of the governance decisions for Cheong-ju Won-heungi Eco-Park. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 39(1): 65-74. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2011.39.1.065
  19. Nelson, N. and S. Wright(1995) Participation and power. in Nelson, N. and S. Wright, eds., Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice, London: Intermediate Technology Publication. pp. 1-18.
  20. Reed, M. S.(2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
  21. Rowe, M. and W. Andy(1999) Changing Estates: A Facilitator's Guide to Making Community Environment Projects Work. London: Groundwork Hackney.
  22. Seoul City(2014) Seoul Blooming Flower.
  23. UNCHS Habitat(2001) Tools to Support Participatory Urban Decision Making.
  24. Wandersman, A.(1981) A framework of participation in community organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 17: 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638101700103
  25. Wilcox, D.(1994) Community Participation and Empowerment: Putting Theory into Practice. New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  26. Yoon, H.(2012) Management and improvement of distressed urban areas through the partnership among stakeholders. The Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea 28(9): 231-242.
  27. www.ncppp.org : The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships 웹사이트