Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning (농촌계획)

Korean Society of Rural Planning (한국농촌계획학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Landscape Preference Analysis of Facility Horticulture Complex in Rural Area - Focus on Korea, Netherlands, Japan -

농촌지역 시설원예단지 경관선호도 분석 연구 - 한국, 네덜란드, 일본을 대상으로 -

  • Son, Jinkwan (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA) ;
  • Kong, Minjae (Relationship of Dankook Univ. and Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Shin, Minji (Department of Bio-Resources Science Dankook Univ. Graduate School) ;
  • Shin, Jihoon (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Dankook University) ;
  • Kang, Donghyeon (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA) ;
  • Yun, Sungwook (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA) ;
  • Lee, Siyoung (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA)
  • 손진관 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원) ;
  • 공민재 (단국대학교-농촌진흥청 학연협동과정) ;
  • 신민지 (단국대학교 대학원, 녹지조경학과) ;
  • 신지훈 (단국대학교 녹지조경학과) ;
  • 강동현 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원) ;
  • 윤성욱 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원) ;
  • 이시영 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원)
  • Received : 2017.09.27
  • Accepted : 2017.11.08
  • Published : 2017.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Humans are provided with a wide range of public benefits from ecosystems and agricultural ecosystems. But the establishment of the horticulture complex is a space that hampers the public ecosystem. Therefore, we have evaluated the creating landscape function of the horticulture complex and found improvement. A total of 20 landscape slides were used for the study. Korea-paddy field, Korea-vinyl greenhouse, Korea-glass greenhouse, Japan-vinyl greenhouse and Netherlands-glass greenhouse were selected as 4 slides. The evaluation used the AHP method and 10 adjectives Likert which compares 20 landscape slides. Four Korea-paddy fields were rated highly positive images. All 10 adjectives can be selected as representative images of production scenes. In most adjectives, four scenes of KVG1, KVG2, KVG3 and KVG4, which are the Korea-greenhouse scenes, were evaluated as negative images. Netherlands and Korea-glass greenhouse scenes and Japan-vinyl greenhouse scenes were generally positive images. In conclusion, it is confirmed that glass greenhouse scenery is higher than vinyl greenhouse scenery. And Japan and Netherlands scenery are higher and better than Korea. Therefore, JVG1 in Japan and NGG3 in the Netherlands were proposed to be set as landscape improvement targets.

Keywords

References

  1. Chae, H and Kim, HM. 2005. A Study on the Classification of Landscape Elements for Effective Management of Agricultural Landscape. Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 11(3): 1-9. (in Korean)
  2. Dale, V.H. and Polasky, S., 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices onecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 64:286-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009
  3. European Commission. 2015. Factsheet on 2014-2020 National Rural Development Programme for Spain. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files/es/factsheet en.pdf.
  4. Garcia-Llorente, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Lopez-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera, P.A. and Montes, C. 2012. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes : an ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 19-20: 136-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006
  5. Joo, SH and Lee, SH. 2012. Analysis of Characteristics of Urban Stream Landscape by landscape adjectives : Focused on the Cheonggyecheon and Yangjaecheon. Korea Planning Assocication, 47(4): 49-63. (in Korean)
  6. Kang, BH. Cho, SJ, Son, JK and Shin, JH. 2012. The Study on the Satisfaction and Image of Passenger at Section Seven, in Olle-gil. Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 18(3): 3-24. (in Korean)
  7. Kim, SB, Son, HG, Kim, EJ and Lee, DG. 2012. A Study on Development Direction for the Establishment of the Rural Landscape Planning. Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 18(4): 35-44. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2012.18.4.035
  8. Kim, SK, Cho, WH and Im, SB. 1999. Landscape Evaluation of Rural Stream based on the Factor Analysis of Visual Preference. Journal of Korean Society of rural planning. 5(1): 5-44. (in Korean)
  9. Kim, CI and Kim, IH. 2010. Evaluation of the City Residents' Images on the Landscape Elements of the Rural Traditional Theme Village. Journal of The Korean Society of Industrial Application, 13(4): 227-233. (in Korean)
  10. Kim SB and LEE SY. 2005. Key Landscape Elements in Constituent Spaces of Rural Village Area : Centered on Rural Traditional Theme Village. Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 12(3): 13-18. (in Korean)
  11. Kim, YM, Yu, HS, Woo, HM, Baek, JI and Ban, YU. 2009. Resident-Participatory Landscape Adjectives for Evaluation about Rural Landscape Status Quo : Focused on Sangye-ri, Okcheon-gun, Chungbuk-do. Urban Design Institute of Korea, 45-653. (in Korean)
  12. Kong MJ, Lee SY, Kang DH, Park, MJ, Yun SW, Shin JH, and Son JK. 2017. A Study on the Image Evaluation for the Improvement of the Landscape of Horticultural Complex in Rural Area. Protected Horticulture and Plant Factory, 26(2): 78-86. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.12791/KSBEC.2017.26.2.78
  13. Korea Environment Institute(KEI). 2004. Environmental Impact Rural Land Use Pattern Changes. (in Korean)
  14. Korea Rural Community Corporation(KRCC). 2007. Rural landscape indicators, rural landscape maps, and field applicability of the research landscape conservation the Convention. (in Korean)
  15. Lee, BY. 2004. A Study on the Evaluation Indices for the Visual Analysis of Rural landscape, The University of Seoul, Seoul-si, Korea. Master's Thesis. (in Korean)
  16. Lee, DK, Yoon, EJ, Kim, EY. and Cho, SJ. 2007. A Study on Rural Landscape Assessment Based on Rural Amenity Resources. Journal of Korean Society of rural planning, 13(1): 1-17.
  17. Ministry of Agricultural Food and Rural Affairs(MAFRA). 2014a. 2013 Greenhouse status and vegetable production performance. Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. (in Korean)
  18. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs(MAFRA). 2014b. 2014 Vegetable greenhouse status and vegetable production performance. Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. (in Korean)
  19. Mu.noz, P., Anton, A., Nu.nez, M., Vijay, A., Ari.no, J., Castells, X., Montero, J. and Rieradevall, J., 2008. Comparing the environmental impacts of greenhouse versus open-field tomato production in the Mediterranean region. In: ISHSActa Horticulturae (Ed.), International Conference on Sustainable Greenhouse Systems. GREENSYS 2007. 4.6 October 2008, Naples, Italy.
  20. Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, A.J., Castro, H. and Garcia-Llorente, M. 2016. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and implications for human well-being in Spanish drylands. Land Use Policy 54: 534-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.011
  21. Ra, JH, Lee, YE, Cho, HJ, Ku, JN and Kwon, OS. 2013. Development and Application of Landscape Diversity Evaluation Model on the Basis of Rural and Natural Area. Journal of Korean institute of landscape architecture, 41(6): 84-95. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2013.41.6.084
  22. Richard T. T. Forman. 1995. Land Mosaics : The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press
  23. Rural Research Institute(RRI). 1996. A technical study on the rural planning and computerization. (in Korean)
  24. Shin, JH. 2006. A Study on psychological preference characteristics of landscape lighting in buildings of cultural properties. The University of Seoul, Seoul-si, Korea, Master's Thesis. (in Korean)
  25. Shin, MJ and Shin, JH. 2016. A Study on Evaluation of the Rurality by the Distance of View. Journal of Korean Society of rural planning, 21(2): 63-77. https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2015.21.2.063
  26. Son, HG and Kim SB. 2010. A study on conservative Value Evaluation for landscape of the Rural Tourism villages. Journal of agricultural extension & community development, 17(40): 897-918. (in Korean)
  27. Son, JK, Kong, MJ, Kang, DH and Lee, SY. 2015. A study on the improvement of Ecosystem Service Function for the Protected Horticulture Complex in Agricultural Landscape. Journal of the Korean Society of Rural Planning, 21(4): 45-53. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2015.21.4.045
  28. Son, JK, Shin, JH, Ann, PG and Kang, BH. 2011. The study on the Image Evaluation of a Preserved Tree as Growth Environment -Focused on the Zelkova serrata in Yesangun, J. of Korea rural planning, 117(2): 33-41. (in Korean)
  29. Spain Law. 45/2007. de 13 de Diciembre, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad.BOE 299:51339-51349.
  30. Suh, JH, Cho, YB and Lee, JG. 2002. A Study on the Analysis of Landscape Preference in the Rural-Landscape by Indes of Shape. Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation, 6(3): 7-14. (in Korean)
  31. Yoo, NH, Baek, JI, Kim, YM, Yu, HS and Ban, YU. 2009. Participatory Selecting Representative Landscape Adjectives Through Factor Analysis: Focused on Sangyeh-li, CheongSeong-Myun, Okcheon-Gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea. The Korean Geographic Society, 153-155. (in Korean)
  32. Yoo, SW, Moon, SK and Kwon, SZ. 2000. A Study on the Visual Preference of Users according to the Location of Benches at Urban Community Parks. Archives of Design Research, 13(2): 95-102. (in Korean)
  33. Yoon, JO, Kim, YI and Jung, KH. 1995. A Study on the Aesthetic Preference for Rural Landscapes: urban and rural resident differences. Journal of Korean institute of landscape architecture. 23(2): 93-103. (in Korean)
  34. Zalidis, G., Stamatiadis, S.V., Takavakoglou Eskridge, K. and Misopolinos, N. 2002. Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region and proposed assessment methodology. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88: 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00249-3