Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture (한국전통조경학회지)

Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture (한국전통조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of the Values and Assessment Indicators of Traditional Temple Area - Focused on In-depth Interview, Focus Group Interview, and Pairwise Comparison -

전통사찰 보존지의 가치 및 평가지표 도출 - 심층인터뷰, 포커스 그룹 인터뷰, 쌍체비교를 중심으로 -

  • Received : 2017.10.31
  • Accepted : 2017.12.15
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Currently, the object of conservation in heritage conservation is defined as "the value of the heritage" and the value-based management plan has been introduced. Most of traditional temples in korea have been sustained over 1000 years, which make them mixed heritages, including cultural, religious and natural heritages. Therefore, traditional temples should be managed by value-based management plans. This article aims to develop the values and assessment indicators of traditional temple areas and to evaluate the importances of the values and indicators, in order to prepare the basic materials for conserving the values of traditional temples. This study used the diverse research methods such as literature review, in-situ survey, in-depth interview, focus group interview, questionnaire survey. The results showed that the identified values and assessment indicators of traditional temple area were defined as three classes: high class value was consisted of intrinsic value and use value, middle class values were 10 (5 for intrinsic and 5 for use value). 5 middle class values belonging to the intrinsic value were religious/humanity, historical, cultural, environmental/ecological, landscape values. 5 values constituting the use value were social, educational, therapeutic, recreational, and economic values. As a low class, 102 assessment indicators were identified. 60 participants (30 buddhism people, 30 KNPS people) evaluated the importances of the developed values and indicators, using the pairewise comparison for the values and the interval scale for the indicators. It was found that both groups evaluated the use value more important than the intrinsic value and that religious/humanity, landscape, environmental/ecological, economic, recreational values were evaluated more important than the other middle class values. It was also revealed that the two groups were different in their assessments of the indicators. Based on the results, some suggestions were made to improve the management of the traditional temple areas.

유산보존에 대한 세계적 추세를 보면 유산의 궁극적인 보존대상을 "가치"로 정의하고 가치 중심 관리계획을 수립하고 있다. 우리나라 전통사찰 보존지는 대부분 1000년이 넘게 지속되어온 지역으로, 문화, 종교, 자연이 어우러진 복합유산이다. 따라서 전통사찰 보존지의 관리는 이러한 다양한 가치를 보존하기 위한 가치 중심 관리계획에 의해 수행되어야 한다. 본 연구의 목적은 전통사찰 보존지의 가치와 지표를 도출하고 중요도를 평가하여 전통사찰 보존지의 가치보존에 기여할 수 있는 기본 자료를 구축하는 것이다. 이를 위해서 문헌조사, 현장답사, 다양한 이해당사자들에 대한 심층인터뷰, 포커스 그룹 인터뷰, 설문조사를 활용하여 전통사찰 보존지의 가치와 지표를 도출하고 중요도 평가가 수행되었다. 전통사찰 보존지의 가치와 지표는 상위, 중위, 하위 계층으로 구분된다. 상위계층은 본질적 가치와 이용적 가치로 구분되며, 중위계층은 본질적 가치를 설명하는 5개 중위가치(종교 및 인문, 역사, 문화, 환경 및 생태, 경관가치)와 이용적 가치를 설명하는 5개 중위가치(사회, 교육, 관광, 치유, 경제가치)로 구성되었다. 하위계층으로 10개 중위가치를 설명하는 102개 지표가 도출되었다. 가치와 지표에 대한 중요도 평가에는 불교계 30명과 국립공원관리공단 30명이 참여하였으며, 상위가치와 중위가치의 평가에는 쌍체비교가, 지표의 평가에는 5점 등간척도가 사용되었다. 평가결과를 보면 이용적 가치가 본질적 가치보다 더 중요하게 평가되고 있으며, 종교인문가치, 경관가치, 환경생태가치, 경제가치, 관광가치에 대한 중요도가 다른 중위가치들보다 더 높게 평가되고 있었다. 지표에 대한 평가를 보면 두 집단 간 차이가 나타나고 있어, 전통사찰의 다양한 가치에 대한 국립공원 관리공단의 인식이 낮음을 알 수 있다. 이러한 평가결과에 근거하여 전통사찰 보존지 관리에 대한 개선사항이 제시되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ross, M.(1996). Planning and the Heritage, Policy and Procedures E & FN Spon.
  2. UNESCO(1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO.
  3. Yi, Y. K. and Yi, P. I.(2002). Resource Value Assessment of Traditional Temples in National Parks, Journal of Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture. 20(4): 37-45.
  4. Jokilehto, J.(2010). Conservation of Living Religious Heritage, Conclusions of the ICCROM Forum: Conserving the Sacred, CCROM Forum p.10.
  5. ICCOROM(2003). Forum on the Conservation of Living Religious Heritage, ICCROM Conservation Studies p.112I.
  6. ICOMOS(2004). Filling the Gaps-an Action Plan for the Future, Conseil International des Monuments et des Sites p.94.
  7. ICOMOS(2008). Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place.
  8. ICOMOS(2011). General Assembly Resolution on Protection and Enhancement of Sacred Heritage Sites, Buildings and Landscapes, http://whc.unesco.org/upl oads/activities/documents/activity-646-1.pdf
  9. UNESCO(2010). International Seminar on the Role of Religious Communities in the Management of World Heritage Properties in the Kiev(Ukraine): Kyiv Statement on the Protection of Religious Properties in the Framework of the World Heritage Convention.
  10. UNESCO MAB/IUNCN(2008). Guidelines for the Conservation and Management of Sacred Natural Sites, https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PAG-016.pdf
  11. Mason, R.(2002). Economics and Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles.
  12. Lipe, W.(1998). Value and Meaning in Cultural resources, in C Henry, Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage; a Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems, Cambridge University Press 1-11.
  13. ICOMOS(1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites(Venice Charter), Paris:Unesco
  14. Burra Charter(1998). Burra Charter Archival Documents, AUSTRALIA ICOMOS pp. 1-23.
  15. Frey(1997). The Evaluation of Cultural heritage: Some Critical Issues. In Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage, ed. M. Hutter and I. Rizzo. London: Macmillan.
  16. English Heritage(1997). Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives on the Future Heritage Discussion Document, Lodon: English Heritage.
  17. English Heritage(2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, London: English Heritage.
  18. Mason, R.(1999). Values and Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles.
  19. Clark, K.(2006). Capturing the Public Value of Heritage, The Proceedings of The London Conference.
  20. Mason, R.(2000). Values and Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles.
  21. Yi, Y. K.(1997). A Study on the Artificial Facilities and Signs in Traditional Temple. Journal of Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture. 15(2): 21-29.
  22. Yi, Y. K. and Yi, P. I. (2010). Evaluation of Conservation and Use Values of Heritage Tourism Resources-Focused on Sustainable Use. Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment: 410-420.
  23. Yi, Y. K.(2009). Cultural Value and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage -Application of Single-Bounded Contingent Valuation Method. Journal of Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture. 27(4): 1-9.
  24. Yi, Y. K., Yi, P. I. and Han, S. Y.(2006). Economic Evaluation of Use and Conservation Values of Traditional Temples-In Case of Sinheungsa in Seolak Mountain and Hainsa in Gaya Mountain, Journal of Korean Institure of Landscape Architecture. 34(5): 84-99.
  25. Yi, Y. K., Kim, J. E. and Lee, S. Y.(2010). Impact of Solar Energy Facility on the Landscape Experience of Traditional Temple, Journal of Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture. 28(3): 114-121.
  26. Lee, S. Y. and Yi, Y. K.(2011a). An Analysis of the Present Condition of the Outdoor Advertizing Sign in the Bulguksa Business District-Focused on the Factors for Enhanced Communication Function and Regional Identity, Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture. 17(3): 550-562.
  27. Lee, S.Y., Yi, Y. K.(2011b). Guidelines for the Improvement of Outdoor Advertizing Sign to Secure Identity in Bulguksa Business District-Focused on Perception of Storeowners, Visitors and Related Public Officials, Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture, 17(4): 422-435.
  28. Choi, S. H., Yi, Y. K., Yi, P.I. and Han, S. Y.(2008). Ecological Value Assessment of Bulguk-Temple in Toham Mountain. Journal of Korean Socirty of Urban Environment. 8(1): 67-80.
  29. Sim, S.D. and Park, H.(2004). Modification and Supplementation of the Guidelines for Preliminary Feasibility Study, Korea Development Institute Report. pp. 107-134.
  30. Na, R. H., Yong, C. Y., and Young, J. K.(2010). Accomplishment Analysis of the Rural Traditional Theme Village by AHP Method. Journal of Agriculture & Life Science. 44(4): 57-68.
  31. Satty, A., Vargas(2001). Model Methods: Concept & Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  32. Park. J. M. and Sung. J. S.(2013). A Study on the Value Criteria and Relative Importance for Conservation of Modern Cultural Heritage.