Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differential Levels of Governance and Its Impact on Urban Park Management and Users' Satisfaction - The Case of Sheffield District Parks, UK -

도시공원관리 거버넌스 구축정도에 따른 이용자 만족도 차이 - 영국 셰필드 지구공원을 대상으로 -

  • Nam, Jinvo (The Place-Keeping Research Group, The University of Sheffiel) ;
  • Kim, Hyun (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Dankook University)
  • 남진보 (셰필드대학교 The Place-Keeping Research Group) ;
  • 김현 (단국대학교 녹지조경학과)
  • Received : 2019.04.19
  • Accepted : 2019.08.19
  • Published : 2019.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the late 1980s, a financial crisis and Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) in green space services brought with it a profound impact on the quality of parks in the UK. Such government projects, e.g. Urban Task Force (1999) and Public Parks Assessment (2001), aimed to raise the awareness of the severity of the declining standards of urban parks. Since the late 1990s, the UK governments (The New Labour (1997-2010) and The Conservative Government (2010-2019)), have often adopted community-led governance schemes to enhance the quality of parks and address problems derived from the financial crisis. Accordingly, community groups, notably 'Friends of', enlarged their involvement in the decision-making process of park management. However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the impact of community-led governance on park management, in particular, the effect on the users' perceptions of park use. This study explored the context of community-led park management to reclassify the level of build-up of governance underlined by 'A Ladder of Citizen Participation'. In addition, questionnaire surveys were conducted around two Sheffield district parks, which are located in deprived areas. As a result, community involvement in the status quo of UK urban park management has changed its form of governance based on the extent of involvement in the decision-making process. The forms of governance could be categorised in three levels: general, active, and predominant governance, where the extents of decision-making and sharing responsibility vary. The results obtained through the questionnaires show that one park (active governance), which has a stronger tendency of sharing responsibility to get involved in park management, had better contribution to park management and positive impacts on users' satisfaction than the other park (general governance). The findings highlight that stronger governance in partnerships with the non-public sectors can shed light on current and future park management through a shift in sharing responsibility for park management.

1980년대 후반 녹지 및 공원경영 관련 예산삭감과 의무경쟁입찰제도(Compulsory Competitive Tendering: CCT)는 영국 도시공원의 질을 저하시키는 원인이 되었다. 1999년 도시 전담 조직(Urban Task Force, 1999), 2001년 도시공원포럼(Urban Park Forum, 2001)에 의한 공공공원평가(Public Parks Assessment)는 공원의 가치와 훼손에 대한 심각성을 경고하였고, 영국의 신노동당(The New Labour Government, 1997-2010) 그리고 보수정부(The Conservative Government 2010-2019 현재)는 부족한 공원녹지 예산문제와 공원의 질적하락 문제에 대해 커뮤니티 참여를 통해 극복하고자 하였다. 이에 따라 커뮤니티 단체 그중에서도 프렌즈 그룹과 같은 비영리 봉사단체의 공원 관리 참여 및 그 역할은 확대되었다. 그러나, 실제 이와 같은 커뮤니티 주도형 거버넌스가, 특히 거버넌스의 구축 차이에 따른 공원의 질적 향상이나 이용자만족도 제고에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지에 대한 연구에 대한 고찰은 거의 이루어지지 않았다. 이에 본 연구에서는 영국의 커뮤니티 주도형 거버넌스를 통한 공원 관리의 흐름을 고찰하였으며, 거버넌스 구축단계를 구분하고자 하였다. 또한, 사회경제적으로 불리한 지역의 영국 셰필드 2개 공원을 대상으로 이용자 설문 조사를 시행하였다. 그 결과, 영국 도시공원 관리에서의 커뮤니티 참여는 의사결정 참여를 통한 거버넌스 운영 관리 구조로 발전되었으며, 일반적, 적극적, 지배적 거버넌스형 단계로 구분할 수 있었다. 또한, 커뮤니티의 의사결정 참여의 단계에 따라 다른 수준의 책임공유가 수반됨을 알 수 있었다. 설문지 분석 결과, 거버넌스 구축단계에 따라 이용자의 공원 관리 만족도에서 차이를 나타냈다. 의사결정 참여 기회를 가지는 책임공유를 수반하는 적극적 거버넌스 구축 공원에서 이용자 만족도에 더욱 긍정적으로 작용하고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 지속적인 커뮤니티의 의사결정 참여를 통한 적극적 거버넌스 구조의 공원관리에 대한 책임공유를 바탕으로하는 파트너십, 특히 비공공 부문, 비영리 사회적 전문그룹 주도의 공원 운영 관리 방식이 도입되어야 함을 제시할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arnstein, S. R.(1969) A ladder of citizen participation, JAIP 35(4): 216-224.
  2. Arts, B. and P. Leroy(2006) Institutional Dynamic in Environmental Governance. Springer, Dordrecht.
  3. Azadia, H., P. Hob, E. Hafnic, K. Zarafshanid and F. Witloxa(2011) Multi-stakeholder involvement and urban green space performance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(6): 785-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.530513
  4. Barber, A.(2005) Green future: A study of the management of multifunctional urban green spaces in England. Reading: Green Space Forum.
  5. Bryman, A.(2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
  6. Choi, H. and J. H. Pae(2016) Step-by-step participatory design process through construction of public discourse and community development: An analysis of New York Governors Island Park and public spaces. Journal of Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 44(2): 11-24. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2016.44.2.011
  7. CLGC(2017) Public Parks: Communities and Local Government Committee. London: The House of Commons.
  8. DCLG(2007) Sustainable Community Act 2007. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
  9. DCLG(2008) PPS12 - creating strong safe and prosperous communities through Local Spatial Planning. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
  10. DCLG(2009) Understanding the Different Roles of Deprived Neighbourhoods. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
  11. DCLG(2010) The New Deal for Communities Experience: A final assessment. London: The Stationary Office.
  12. DCLG(2011) The Localism Act 2011. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
  13. DCLG(2015) The Indices of Multiful Deprivation. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
  14. Dempsey, N. and M. Burton(2012) Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11: 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.09.005
  15. Dempsey, N., M. Burton and R. Duncan(2016) Evaluating the effectiveness of a cross-sector partnership for green space management: The case of Southey Owlerton. Sheffield Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 15: 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.002
  16. Dijk, V. T.(2009) Who is in charge of the urban fringe? Neoliberalism, open space preservation and growth control. Journal Planning Practice & Research 24(3): 343-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450903020791
  17. Drayson, K. and G. Newey(2014) Green Society: Policies to Improve the UK's Green Spaces, London: Policy Exchange.
  18. HMGovernment(2010) Building the Big Society. London: The Cabinet Office.
  19. Kim, Y. K.(2015) The policy of park asset transfers in England: A move toward community ownership and park management. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 43(1): 108-119. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2015.43.1.108
  20. Larner, W.(2009) Neoliberalism, Urban. In K. Rob &T. Nigel (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography (pp. 385-390), Oxford: Elsevier.
  21. Lim, S. S. and J. H. Park(2014) A study on the introduction of laws for financial stability of local government. Korea Institute of Local Finance.
  22. Mathers, A., M. Burton, S. Creevey, R. O'Riordan and E. Whitaker (2011) Community capacity: A case study investigation of open space resourcing through partnership capacity, Sheffield. The Department of Landscape: The University of Sheffield.
  23. McCarthy, J. and S. Prudham(2004) Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism, Geoforum 35: 275-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.07.003
  24. McHugh, M. L.(2009) The odds ratio: Calculation, usage, and interpretation. Biochemia Medica 19(2): 120-126. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2009.011
  25. Moore, D. L. and J. Tarnai(2002) Evaluating nonresponse error in mail surveys. In: Groves, R. M., D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge and R. J. A. Little (eds.), Survey Nonresponse, New York: John Wiley & Sons 197-211.
  26. Nam, J. and N. Dempsey(2018) Community food growing in parks? Assessing the acceptability and feasibility in Sheffield, UK. Sustainability 10(8): 2887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082887
  27. Nam, J. and N. Dempsey(2019a) Understanding stakeholder perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of formal and informal planting in Sheffield's district parks. Sustainability 11(2): 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020360
  28. Nam, J. and N. Dempsey(2019b) Acceptability of income generation practices in the 21st century urban park management. Journal of Environmental Management(under review).
  29. Nam, J. and N. Dempsey(2019c) Place-keeping for health? Charting the challenges for urban park management in practice. Sustainability 11(15): 4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164383
  30. Nam, J. and N. Kim(2019) An understanding of green space policies and evaluation tool in the UK: A focus on the Green Flag Award, Journal of the Korean Society Environmental Restoration Technology 22(1): 13-31.
  31. ODPM(2003) "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  32. Pallant, J.(2010) Spss Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. New York, USA: Open University Press.
  33. Park, J. H., Y. H. Son and T. Kiharu(2011) Participatory design process for the utilization of the military relocation site: The case of the idea competition for the Fukaya communication site in Yokohama. Journal of Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 39(3): 10-25. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2011.39.3.010
  34. Sheffield City Council(2000) Site Categorisation Strategy. Sheffield City Council.
  35. Sim, J. Y. and K. J. Zoh(2016) Strategies of large park development and management through governance - Case studies of The Presidio and Sydney Harbour National Park. Journal of Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 44(6): 66-72.
  36. Urban Park Forum(2001) Public parks assessment: A survey of local authority owned parks. Urban Park Forum, Green Spaces.
  37. Urban Task Force(1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. London, E&FN Spon.