Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2014.42.6.060

A Study on Embodiment Aspects and Practice Strategies of Welfare Ideology in Contemporary Urban Park  

Cho, Han-Sol (Korea Forest Research Institute)
Han, So-Young (The Seoul Institute)
Zoh, Kyung-Jin (Graduate School of Environment Studies, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture / v.42, no.6, 2014 , pp. 60-71 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, on the assumption that the urban park originally is imbued with a public welfare ideology, said public welfare ideology and its characteristics were attended to among the various social roles that the urban park currently fulfills. Aspects of welfare meaning in urban parks were attempted to be identified with the former history of urban parks and the movements of the connections between modern parks and welfare territories. The ideologies, benefits and practices regarding the welfare role that the urban park has played from the past to the present were examined and the backgrounds and contexts within which the welfare ideologies have been expressed in the urban park were examined. In order to examine the implicated public welfare ideologies of the urban park, case studies were conducted to identify how they are expressed and practiced in the present times and the facilitation of these parks and public welfare both in the U.S. and the South Korea. The study results of the cases show that expressions of public welfare in urban parks are composed of more specific and visible programs and strategies in the present times, which are different from the simple proclamatory ways in the past. Particularly, in order to visibly practice a public welfare ideology, many-sided integrated designs are conducted along with various public welfare institutions and programs inside and outside of the urban park. The conclusions from this study are as follows. First, the urban park plays a role as a space to realize public welfare ideology, to create welfare benefits and to realize social welfare. Modern urban parks are used as an indicator to measure the actual conditions of social welfare and are a social environmental commodity that can offer universal benefits to urban residents. Second, many-sided integrated designs are tried along with various public welfare institutions at urban parks, which visibly practice public welfare ideologies in the present. In addition, public welfare institutions greatly influence the consistent development of the resources in the urban park. Third, if the detailed utilization of the regional facilities infrastructure could be brought along with multidimensional approaches about the resources in the urban park, it could be much closer to the lives of residents and could secure a space for increasing resident quality of life.
Keywords
Park Welfare; Green Welfare; Eco Welfare; Environmental Welfare; Welfare Agency;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kim, S. K, H. S. Joh, A. N. Kim, Y. K. Kim, E. J. Kang, H. W. Shin, S. Y. Yoon and Y. H. Joh(2006) A Study on Evaluation and Development of Social Welfare Policies in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance. 김승권, 김유경, 김상철, 조흥식, 백종만, 임성은(2006) 한국 사회복지정책의 평가와 발전방안. 한국보건사회연구원.
2 Schuyler, D.(1986) The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Ninetheenth-Century America, London: Johns Hopkins.
3 Koh, J. K., Y. J. Lee, J. I. Lee, M. Y. Song, D. Y. Kim and S. J. Kang (2012) Environmental welfare is the future welfare. Issue & Diagnosis Vol. 35. Gyeonggi Research Institute. 고재경, 김동영, 이양주, 강상준, 이정임, 송미영(2012) 미래의복지는환경복지. 이슈&진단 (35). 경기개발연구원.
4 Nigel, D., S. Carys and H. Woolley(2002) Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces, Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield.
5 Regional Public Health(2010) Healthy Open Spaces. Regional Public Health in Wellington Region.
6 Seattle Government(2006) Seattle's Park and Recreation 2006 Development Plan, Seattle.
7 The Trust for Public Land(2011) The Economic Benefits of Seattle's Park and Recreation System, San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land.
8 Urban Parks Forum(2002) Your Parks, the Benefits of Parks and Green Space. London: Urban Parks Forum.
9 Veenhoven, R.(2000) Well being in the welfare state level not higher, distibution not more equitable. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2: 91-125.
10 Walker, A.(1997) Whither Welfare?. The Student's Companion to Sociology. Ballard, C.(eds) Oxford, Blackwell.
11 Walker, C. (2004) The Public Value of Urban Parks, a Broader View of Urban Parks, The Urban Institute: Washington.
12 Yoon, K. J. and K. Y. Kim(2010) Calculation and comparison of "Wellbeing Indicator" for OECD countries. The Forum of Health and Welfare (159): 86-98. 윤강재, 김계연(2010) OECD 국가의행복지수산정및비교. 보건복지포럼 (159): 86-98.
13 Greve, B.(2008) What is welfare. Central European Journal of Public Policy Vol. 2.
14 Cabe space(2003) The Value of Public Space. CabeSpace.
15 Edinburgh College of Art and Heriot-Watt University, "Open Space: the Research Centre for Inclusive Access to Outdoor Environments" http://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/architecture-landscape-architecture/research/centres/openspace (access : 2014.11.20.)
16 Boland, M.(2003) Crissy Field- A New Model for Managing Urban Parklands. Places, Cambridge: College of Environmental Design. UC Berkeley.
17 Kim, J. H.(2003) On the Welfare State. Seoul: Daemyung. 김정헌(2003) 복지국가론. 서울: 대명.
18 Howard, E.(2012) Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: General Books LLC.