Journal of Korean Society of Disaster and Security (한국방재안전학회논문집)

Korean Society of Disaster & Security (한국방재안전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Evaluation Parameters of Safety City Models

안전도시 모델의 평가지표에 관한 연구

  • Joon-Hak Lee (Nuclear and WMD Protection Research Center, Korea Military Academy) ;
  • Okkyung Yuh (Department of Urban and Architectural Engineering, Hanyang Cyber University)
  • 이준학 (육군사관학교 핵.WMD방호연구센터) ;
  • 여옥경 (한양사이버대학교 도시건축공학과)
  • Received : 2023.06.01
  • Accepted : 2023.06.13
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As interest in urban safety has increased since COVID-19, various institutions have developed and used indicators that evaluate the safety city model. Yongsan-gu was ranked No. 1 in 2021 by Social Safety Index evaluation and was selected as the safest city in Korea. However, the Itaewon disaster in Yongsan-gu in 2022 caused many casualties. The study of indicators for evaluating cities' safety was necessary. This study aims to examine domestic and foreign safe city models and review the differences between each model and the indicators used to evaluate safe cities. As a result of collecting 11 safe city models and analyzing each evaluation index, safe city models can be classified into program-based safe city models, such as the World Health Organization's International safe community and the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction's International Safe city. Considering the diversification of threats to safety, it is reasonable to comprehensively consider digital security, health safety, infrastructure safety, personal safety, environmental safety, traffic safety, fire safety, crime safety, life safety, suicide, and infectious diseases when evaluating safe cities as evaluation parameters.

코로나 19 이후 도시 안전에 대한 관심이 높아지면서, 여러 기관에서 도시의 안전성을 평가하는 지표가 개발되어 활용되고 있다. 용산구는 2021년 사회안전지수 평가에서 1위로 선정되어 한국에서 가장 안전한 도시로 선정되었으나, 2022년 이태원 참사로 인해, 많은 인명 피해가 발생하기도 하였다. 이것은 도시의 안전을 평가하는 지표가 담지 못하는 영역이 있으며, 이에 대한 연구가 필요함을 의미한다. 본 연구의 목적은 국내·외 안전도시 모델을 살펴보고 이를 통해 각 모델의 차이점과 안전도시를 평가할 때 사용되는 지표를 검토하기 위한 것이다. 본 연구에서 11개 안전도시 모델을 수집하고 각 평가지표를 분석한 결과, 안전도시 모델은 세계보건기구의 국제 안전도시와 유엔재해경감기구의 국제안전도시와 같이 기관에서 인증을 하는 "프로그램 기반의 안전도시 모델"과, 기관별 안전 관련 평가지표의 점수에 의해서 안전도시 순위 및 등급이 결정되는 "점수기반의 안전도시 모델"로 분류할 수 있으며, 안전한 도시가 되기 위해서는 이 두 가지 모델이 상호 보완적으로 활용될 때 도시 안전을 위협하는 제반 요소를 전방위적으로 대응할 수 있음을 알 수 있었다. 안전에 대한 위협이 다양해짐을 고려해볼 때 안전도시를 평가할 때 디지털 보안, 보건 안전, 인프라 안전, 개인 안전, 환경 안전, 교통 안전, 화재 안전, 범죄 안전, 생활안전, 자살, 감염병 등을 종합적으로 고려하는 것이 타당하는 결론을 얻었다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by 2023 research fund of Korea Military Academy (Hwarangdae Research Institute), Republic of Korea.

References

  1. Anuar, A. N. A., S. N. Bookhari, and N. A. Aziz. (2012). The Effectiveness of Safe City Programme as Safety Basic in Tourism Industry: Case Study in Putrajaya. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 42: 477-485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.213
  2. Bae, Jeongyee, Joonpil Cho, Seong-il Cho, Minyeong Kwak, Taehyen Lee, and Christina Aram Bae. (2015). Application and Developmental Strategies for Community-Based Injury Prevention Programs of the International Safe Communities Movement in Korea. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 45(6): 910-918.  https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2015.45.6.910
  3. Fesenko, T., G. Fesenko, and N. Bibik. (2017). The Safe City: Developing of GIS Tools for Gender-Oriented Monitoring (On the Example of Kharkiv City, Ukraine). Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 3: 25-33.  https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2017.103054
  4. Institute for Economics & Peace. (2021). Global Peace Index 2022: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. Sydney: IEP. 
  5. Kang, Changhyun and Soonyoung Moon. (2017). Analysis of Trends and Issues in Researches of Safety Communities in South Korea : Focused on the 2006-2016 Journal Articles. Journal of Social Sciences. 56(1): 119-156. 
  6. Kim, Yong-Moon and Tae-Shik Lee. (2020). Evaluation of Disaster Resilience Scorecard for the UN International Safety City Certification of Incheon Metropolitan City. Journal of Korean Society of Disaster and Security. 13(1): 59-75.  https://doi.org/10.21729/KSDS.2020.13.1.59
  7. Lacinak, M. and J. Ristvej. (2017). Smart City, Safety and Security. Procedia Engineering. 192: 522-527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.090
  8. Lee, Jeung Ja. (2019). An Analysis of Influence Factors on Performance of International Safe Community Projects - Focusing on Gwangju Metropolitan City -. Crisisonomy. 15(4): 113-131.  https://doi.org/10.14251/crisisonomy.2019.15.4.113
  9. Lee, Joon Hak. (2022). Comparative Study on the Safety City Indicators. Proceedings of the 2022 Korean Society of Disaster & Security Annual Conference. 18-22. 
  10. Lee, Tae-Shik. (2015). 'International Safe City Certification' Truth and Misunderstanding. Disaster Security. 13(5): 47-54. 
  11. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2019). 2019 Local Safety Index. Sejong: MOIS. 
  12. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2020). 2020 Local Safety Index. Sejong: MOIS. 
  13. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2021). 2021 Local Safety Index. Sejong: MOIS. 
  14. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2022). 2022 Local Safety Index. Sejong: MOIS. 
  15. National Disaster Management Research Institute. (2020a). Development of Diagnosis Indicators for Regional Safety Consciousness Level. Ulsan: NDMI. 
  16. National Disaster Management Research Institute. (2020b). Regional Safety Index Application Guideline. Ulsan: NDMI. 
  17. Risdiana, D. M. and T. D. Susanto. (2019). The Safe City: Conceptual Model Development - A Systematic Literature Review. Procedia Computer Science. 161: 291-299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.126
  18. Song, Changyoung. (2020). A Study on the Improvement Method of the Local Safety Level Index in Basic Local Governments. Journal of the Society of Disaster Information. 16(2): 211-222.  https://doi.org/10.15683/KOSDI.2020.06.30.211
  19. Strukcinskiene, B., S. Distl, and S. Griskonis. (2018). The Safe Community Concept - A Successful Tool for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion. Health Sciences in Eastern Europe. 28(7): 41-46. 
  20. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). Safe Cities Index 2021 - New Expectations Demand a New Coherence. London: EIU. 
  21. The Seoul Institute. (2018). Establishing a Smart and Safe City in Seoul. Seoul: SI. 
  22. Yi, Mi Sook and Kwan Hyun Yeo. (2021). An Analysis on the Spatial Pattern of Local Safety Level Index Using Spatial Autocorrelation - Focused on Basic Local Governments, Korea. Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography. 39(1): 29-40.  https://doi.org/10.7848/KSGPC.2021.39.1.29