Browse > Article

Disparity between Rural and Urban Living Area Based on Regional Interaction - Focused on Busan-Ulsan mega city -  

Kim, Hyun-Joong (Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Seoul National Univ.)
Kang, Dong-Woo (Institute of Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture, Seoul National Univ.)
Cho, Deok-Ho (Dept. of Public Administration, DaeGu Univ.)
Lee, Seong-Woo (Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Seoul National Univ.)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning / v.16, no.4, 2010 , pp. 61-75 More about this Journal
Abstract
Daily living area can be delimited differently depending on what area is to be focused. Based on regional interaction, the present study empirically analyzed the difference between living areas focusing on rural area and ones relying on urban area. We established two types of living areas in Busan-Ulsan mega city with different focus areas (rural versus urban), using travel OD data (2006). According to the result, the fonn of spatial clusters in urban living area differed from that of spatial clusters in rural area; the boundaries of living area were not fit to those of administrative areas in both types; and living areas in both types tended to extend over more than two administrative areas. The results cast some implications concerning spatial planning and policy for living area delimitation. First, since the spatial structure and interconnection of urban area differs to those of rural area, it is required to delimit living areas discriminatively depending on the objectives of the spatial plan. Additionally, the living area should be established more specifically and systematically by further subdividing the form of spaces depending on the objectives and types of the plan. Second, the administrative areas should be consolidated now that the difference of boundaries of administrative and living areas lead to inconvenience of residents, increased administration costs and scale diseconomy. Lastly, the living areas should be delimited by the metropolitan or mega city planning and thus be reflected to its offsprings.
Keywords
Regional Interaction; Rural Area; Urban Area; Daily Living Area; Cluster Analysis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Anselin, L., 2004, GeoDa 0.9.5i Release Notes, CSISS, University of Illinois Press, Urbana- Champaign, IL.
2 Ayeni, B., 1979, Spatial Interaction in the Urban System, Concepts and Techniques in Urban Analysis, Croom Helm.
3 Clock, P. et al., 1999, Introducing Human Geographies, Arnold.
4 김형국, 1981, 근대 한국의 공간구조분석을 위한 모형 연구, 환경논총 9, 109-122.
5 남영우, 1985, 도시구조론, 법문사.
6 마강래.강은택 외, 2010, 자치단체간 생활권을 기반으로 한 행정구역 자율통합, 한국지역개발학회지, 22(1), 126-135.
7 마강래.강은택, 2008, 통근통행을 고려한 수도권의 지역간 상호작용 변화에 관한 연구, 한국지역개발학회지, 20(2), 279-296.
8 서종국, 1998, 도시공간구조 변화와 통행행태의 변화관계에 관한 연구, 국토계획 35(5), 167-182.
9 손승호, 2003, 수도권의 통근통학통행과 지역구조의 변화, 한국도시지리학회지 6(1), 69-83.
10 손승호, 2004, 서울시 등질지역과 기능지역의 구조 분석, 대한지리학회지 39(4), 562-584.   과학기술학회마을
11 손승호, 2005, 서울시 통근통행의 공간구조변화 : 1996-2002년, 서울도시 연구 6(2), 79-94.
12 송두범, 1998, 지역사회단위별 유형구분에 관한 연구, 대구대학교 박사학위논문.
13 이종상, 2000a, 유통패턴분석에 있어서 요인분석의 유용성, 한국지역개발학회 12(2), 55-65.
14 임석희, 2006, 국토공간의 지역 간 연계와 지역구조 분석 연구 : 시외버스 유동량을 지표로, 공간과 사회 25, 131-157.
15 김동주, 1981, 군집분석을 이용한 권역설정 : 와드방법을 중심으로, 국토계획 16(2), 61-67.
16 김미영, 2007, 농촌지역의 유형구분, 농어촌과 환경 97, 73-88.
17 Glasson, J., 1982, An Introduction to Regional Planning, Concepts, Theory and Practice, Hutchinson.
18 이종상, 2000b, 통행 OD를 이용한 지역간 상호작용 분석, 국토계획 35(6), 155-165.
19 이희연.김홍주, 2006, 네트워크 분석을 통한 수도권의 공간구조 변화 1980-2000년, 국토계획 41(1), 133-151.
20 임석희, 1994, 한국 행정구역체계의 문제점과 개편의 방향, 대한지리학회지, 29(1), 65-88.