Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14700/KITLA.2017.35.4.014

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

Yi, Young Kyoung (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Dongguk University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture / v.35, no.4, 2017 , pp. 14-28 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Traditional Temple; Cultural Heritage; Heritage Assessment; Heritage Management; Heritage Conservation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.
2 Satty, A., Vargas(2001). Model Methods: Concept & Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3 Park. J. M. and Sung. J. S.(2013). A Study on the Value Criteria and Relative Importance for Conservation of Modern Cultural Heritage.
4 Ross, M.(1996). Planning and the Heritage, Policy and Procedures E & FN Spon.
5 UNESCO(1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO.
6 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.
7 Jokilehto, J.(2010). Conservation of Living Religious Heritage, Conclusions of the ICCROM Forum: Conserving the Sacred, CCROM Forum p.10.
8 ICOMOS(2008). Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place.
9 ICCOROM(2003). Forum on the Conservation of Living Religious Heritage, ICCROM Conservation Studies p.112I.
10 ICOMOS(2004). Filling the Gaps-an Action Plan for the Future, Conseil International des Monuments et des Sites p.94.
11 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
12 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.
13 ICOMOS(1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites(Venice Charter), Paris:Unesco
14 UNESCO MAB/IUNCN(2008). Guidelines for the Conservation and Management of Sacred Natural Sites, https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PAG-016.pdf
15 Mason, R.(2002). Economics and Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles.
16 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.
17 Burra Charter(1998). Burra Charter Archival Documents, AUSTRALIA ICOMOS pp. 1-23.
18 Mason, R.(1999). Values and Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles.
19 English Heritage(1997). Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives on the Future Heritage Discussion Document, Lodon: English Heritage.
20 English Heritage(2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, London: English Heritage.
21 Clark, K.(2006). Capturing the Public Value of Heritage, The Proceedings of The London Conference.
22 Mason, R.(2000). Values and Heritage Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles.
23 Frey(1997). The Evaluation of Cultural heritage: Some Critical Issues. In Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage, ed. M. Hutter and I. Rizzo. London: Macmillan.
24 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.
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 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.
31 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.
32 Sim, S.D. and Park, H.(2004). Modification and Supplementation of the Guidelines for Preliminary Feasibility Study, Korea Development Institute Report. pp. 107-134.