Browse > Article

The Stakeholder's Response and Future of Mountain Community Development Program in Rep. of Korea  

Yoo, Byoung Il (Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR))
Kim, So Heui (Forest Management Division, Korea Forest Research Institute)
Seo, Jeong-Weon (Forest Management Division, Korea Forest Research Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science / v.94, no.4, 2005 , pp. 214-225 More about this Journal
Abstract
The mountain village development program in Korea started in the mountain villages, the 45.9% of total land and one of the typical marginal region, from 1995 to achieve the equilibrium development of national land and the sustainable mountain development in Chapter 13 in Agenda 21, and it has been accelerated to increase the happiness and the quality of life of mountain community residents through the expansion by province and the improvement of related laws and regulations. This study has been aimed to analyze the response of main stakeholder's -mountain village residents and local government officials - on mountain villages development, and to provide the future plan as community development. The survey and interview data were collected from the mountain villages which already developed 59 villages and developing 15 villages in 2003. The mountain village development program has achieved the positive aspects as community development plan in the several fields, - the voluntary participation of residents, the establishment of self-support spirit as the democratic civilians, the development of base of income increasement, the creation of comfortable living environment, the equilibrium development with the other regions. Especially the mountain residents and local government officials both highly satisfy with the development of base of income increasement and the creation of comfortable living environment which are the main concerns to both stakeholder. However through the mountain development program, it is not satisfied to increase the maintenance of local community and the strengthening of traditional value of mountain villages. Also to improve the sustainable income improvement effects, it is necessary to develop the income items and technical extension which good for the each region. In the decentralization era, it is necessary for local government should have the more active and multilateral activities for these. With this, the introduction of methods which the mountain community people and the local government officials could co-participate in the mountain villages' development from the initial stages and the renovation of related local government organizations and the cooperatives will be much helpful to the substantiality of mountain development program. Also it is essential for the assistance of central government to establish the complex plan and the mountain villages network for all mountain area and the exchange of information, the education and training of mountain villages leader who are the core factor for the developed mountain villages maintenance, the composition of national mountain villages representatives. In case the development proposals which based on the interests of the main stakeholder's on mountain community could be positively accepted, then the possibility of the mountain village development as one of community development will be successfully improved in future.
Keywords
sustainable mountain development; sustainable forest management; mountain community; stakeholder; decentralization; livelihood; Rep. of Korea;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 곽경호, 김세빈. 2002. 산촌종합개발 사례지역의 경영실태와 발전방향. 산림경제연구 10(2): 177-124
2 산림청. 2000. 21세기 산림비젼. pp.96. 산림청
3 유병일, 성규철, 서정원, 전준헌. 2004. 한국 산림복합경영의 실태 및 경영분석. 국립산림과학원 논문집 67호. 125-138
4 정광섭 . 2003. 지역사회개발과 국제화. pp.357. 우용출판사
5 A Villeneuve, A. Castelein & M.A. Mekouar. 2002. Mountains and the Law-emerging trends. FAO Legislative Study 75. pp.91. FAO
6 유병일, 서정원, 김소희. 2003. 전국산촌기초조사보고서전국편-연구보고 '03-11. pp.467 임업연구원
7 김소희, 서정원, 유병일 2004. 우리나라 산촌개발사업의 실태와 현황분석 산림경제연구 12(1): 46-57