Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the Awareness of Garden Functions

정원 기능에 대한 인식 비교

  • Park, Mi-Ok (Smart Green City Industry Convergence Major, Korea Nazarene University) ;
  • Choi, Ja-Ho (La.ent Co., Ltd.) ;
  • Koo, Bon-Hak (Dept. of Environmental Landscape Architecture, SangMyung University)
  • 박미옥 (나사렛대학교 스마트그린도시산업융합전공) ;
  • 최자호 (랜트주식회사) ;
  • 구본학 (상명대학교 환경조경학과)
  • Received : 2020.03.02
  • Accepted : 2020.04.13
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in perceptions between gardens and park functions as recognized by two groups, Group A and Group B, in order to confirm the distinction between concepts and functions and then establish the importance of individual functions. The AHP was used to analyze the importance of each group's perceptions by dividing them into garden and park, Group A and non-Group A, respectively. In Group A, the importance of garden functions were considered in descending order of importance to be cultural function, ecological function, and social function. In the general group, ecological function, cultural function, and social function also appeared, but in a different order of importance. As for the park functions, Group A recognized the importance of functions in a similar order of importance to the gardens: cultural function, ecological function, and social function. Group B thought that social function, ecological function, and cultural function have the same significance. At the major classification level, Group A and Group B emphasized the social function of the parks. Group A recognized the importance of the garden's cultural function as the most important, whereas the general group emphasized the importance of the garden's ecological function. As for the mid-class level, Group A recognized the aesthetic beauty, health, ecological environment protection, and water circulation as important functions of the garden. For Group B, the ecological environment protection, aesthetic beauty, water cycle, and health were important. The concepts and functions of gardens and parks are still largely mixed but are gradually becoming differentiated. As a follow-up study, it is important to systematically manage the functions of gardens by establishing design, construction, and monitoring DB techniques for the garden type and examine the hierarchy of various other gardens.

정원이 제도적 차원에서 공적영역으로 확대되며, 기능의 불명확성으로 인해 혼란이 발생하고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 정원 조성 및 이용자 관점, 즉 전문가와 일반인을 대상으로 정원 기능의 우선순위 인식을 규명하고, 정책적 방향성을 제시하고자 수행하였다. 연구방법론은 사회과학적 방법론인 AHP를 적용하였으며, 집단A 227명, 집단B 220명의 인식을 분석하고 비교고찰하였다. 먼저 정원의 대분류 기능에 대한 가중치 분석 결과, 집단A는 문화적 기능, 생태적 기능, 사회적 기능의 순으로 중요하게 인식하고 있다. 반면 집단B에서는 생태적 기능, 문화적 기능, 사회적 기능 순으로 나타나, 서로 간 인식 차이가 확인되었다. 둘째, 각 대분류별 중분류의 가중치 분석 결과에서는 문화적 기능에서 심미적 아름다움이 두 집단 모두 1순위로 나타났으며, 영적 종교적 영감, 문화유산과 고유성에서 순위 차이가 있었다. 생태적 기능에서는 생태환경 보호, 사회적 기능에서는 지역주민 삶의 질이 두 집단 모두 1순위로 평가되었으며, 나머지 중분류 우선순위도 모두 동일하였다. 셋째, 대분류 수준의 각 기능별 가중치를 곱셈한 중분류 기능의 종합적 분석 결과에서는 생태환경보호, 심미적 아름다움, 휴양치유, 물순환에 대해 두 집단 모두 제일 중요하게 인식하였다. 반면 두 집단 모두 산업화를 가장 후순위로 인식하고 있었다. 종합하여 보면 공적 영역으로 확대된 정원은 이용자 중심의 공간 기능이 우선되어야 하며, 산업적 혼란을 방지함과 동시에 전문성이 존중되어야 한다. 즉, 생태환경 보호와 물순환 등의 생태적 기능을 최우선으로 하여, 심미적 아름다움, 휴양치유 등의 문화적 기능을 보완하는 것이 효과적일 것으로 판단된다. 후속 연구로서 정원의 유형과 위계, 기타 다양한 정원에 대한 설계와 시공 및 모니터링 DB를 구축하여, 정원의 흐름을 체계적으로 관리하는 것이 중요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Carver, S.(2012) (Re)Creating Wilderness: Rewilding and habitat restoration. in Peter Howard, Ian H. Thompson, Emma Waterton (eds) The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies.
  2. Chang, E. A., C. Y. Park, Y. W. Lim and D. C. Shin(2001) A comparison of environmental risk perceptions between group B and Group As. The Korean Society of Environmental Health and Toxicology 16(2): 75-84.
  3. Hunt, J. D.(1999) Greater Perfections: The Practice of Garden Theory. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  4. Jenks, C.(2004) Nature talking with nature. Landscape Gardening. The Architectural Review.
  5. Jin, H. Y., J. H. Song and J. H. Shin(2011) A study on the cognition of design elements for making Korean traditional garden, Korea Society of Rural Planning 17(4): 51-60. https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2011.17.4.051
  6. Jo, I. S. and J. M. Choi(2019) A study on the operation of the sustainability of community garden. Journal of The Residential Environment Institute of Korea 17(4): 91-107.
  7. Ko, K. K. and H. Y. Ha(2008) Meta analysis of the utilization of analytic hierarchy process for policy studies in Korea. The Korea Association for Policy Studies 17(1): 287-315.
  8. Korean Association of Botanical Gardens & Arboreta(KABGA) (2013) Studies on Knowledge of Intellection for Garden, Botanical Garden and Arboretum and Historical Development. Report of Korea Forest Service.
  9. Kim, C. S.(2018) A comparison of recognition between group A group and general people group about geo-technologies in the future. Economic and Environmental Geology 51(5): 455-461. https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2018.51.5.455
  10. Kim, J. S.(2016) Suncheon bay national garden: Its history and significance. Namdo Munhwa Yongu 31(31): 457-474.
  11. Kim, S. C. and H. J. Eo(1994) Priority aggregation for AHP based on group As opinions. Journal of The Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society 19(3): 41-51.
  12. Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture(KITLA)( 2014) A Study on National Garden Promotion Plan for Spreading Garden Culture. Report of Korea Forest Service.
  13. Kwon, J. W., E. Y. Park, K. P. Hong and M. H. Hwang(2013) Suggestions on the types of the distribution of gardens for the overseas establishment of traditional Korean gardens -Oriented the garden which is applicable to the open space-. Journal of KTLA 31(3): 106-113.
  14. Oh, H. S., E. M. Sung, J. H. Bae and M. J. Sung(2009) Comparative study of the main characteristics between the top group as from general group as in company context. Asian Journal of Education 10(4): 105-135. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2009.10.4.005
  15. Park, J. M., J. S. Sung and H. R. Cho(2017a) A study on the progress and implication of garden cities for the sustainable development. Journal of The Urban Design Insitute of Korea 18(2):21-35. https://doi.org/10.38195/judik.2017.04.18.2.21
  16. Park, M. O.(2015) A study on the functions of gardens as the ecosystem cultural services. Journal of the Korean Institute of Garden Design 1(2): 115-123. https://doi.org/10.14774/JKIID.2015.24.1.115
  17. Park, M. O.(2017) A comparative study on the awareness of garden functions between the Group As and Group Bs for day life gardening. 2017 Autumn Academy Conference of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture.
  18. Park, M. O.(2018) A comparative study on the awareness of concepts for gardens and parks between the group As and group Bs. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 46(5):1-9. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2018.46.5.001
  19. Park, M. O. and J. H. Choi(2018) A study on the perception for ecological functions of gardens. 2018 Spring Academy Conference of the Korean Institute of Garden Design.
  20. Park, M. O., J. H. Choi and B. H. Koo(2017b) A basic study on the setting of the functions of gardens. Journal of the Korean Institute of Garden Design 3(2): 96-102.
  21. Presidential Commission on Architecture Policy(PCAP)(2014) Suggestions on the Standard and Assistance Model for the Overseas Establishment of Traditional Korean Gardens. Report of Presidential Commission on Architecture Policy.
  22. Ryu, Y. J. and D. G. Cho(2015) A study on comparing traditional garden and modern garden for developing garden culture of Korea. Journal of Korea Intitute of Spatial Design 10(5) : 113-124. https://doi.org/10.35216/kisd.2015.10.5.113
  23. Saaty, T. L.(1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  24. Saaty, T. L.(1987) The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling 9(3): 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
  25. Saaty, T. L.(1988) What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? University of Pittsburgh.
  26. Saaty, T. L.(1990) How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48: 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
  27. Saaty, T. L.(1997) That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6(6): 320-339. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6<320::AID-MCDA164>3.0.CO;2-2
  28. Saaty, T. L.(2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Services Sciences 1(1): 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  29. Son, S. R. and S. Y. Lee(2005) A study on urban residents' perception toward open space and its polity implications -A case study of Masan-Changwon metropolitan area-. Seoul Urban Study 6(4): 21-36.
  30. Song, G. W. and Y. Lee(2013) Re-scaling for improving the consistency of the AHP method. Social Science Study 29(2): 271-288.
  31. Wind, Y. and T. L. Saaty(1980) Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 26(7): 641-658. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.7.641
  32. Woo, K. S. and J. H. Suh(2016) A study on the contemporary definition of 'GARDEN'. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 44(5): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2016.44.5.001