• KIEAE Journal
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.23-30
• /
• 2013

Due to rapid urbanization and industrialization in Korea urban environmental problems such as changes in climate and shortage in green spaces and social problems such as lacks of interactions with neighbors have occurred and community garden appeared as one means to solve such problems. The purpose of this study is to comprehensively identify the evaluation items to measure the effect of community gardens. This study comprehensively researched the evaluation items through literature studies of domestic and overseas documents and verified their contents through case studies of domestic site. As a result of this study, a total of 39 measurement items for evaluation was identified and these items were divided into five large categories of "eco-environmental effect," "production and economic effect," "physical effect," "psychological effect," and "social effect" and these categories could be subdivided into 12 types. This study can be used as references for positively introducing the community gardens in Korea and has a meaning that it can be developed as an analyzing tool for measuring the concrete effects of community gardens when they are introduced in Korea in large numbers hereafter.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.51 no.2
• /
• pp.269-281
• /
• 2016

This article problematizes and interrogates the idea of 'community' which is increasingly important in Korean urban policy-making. For the purpose, this article scrutinizes, and compares, how ordinary citizen participants and civil society activist organizations in a 'community garden' program of Seoul make sense of, utilize, and practice the policy concept. The neo-Faucauldian perspective of 'governmentality' is employed to understand the association between the community-focused policy program and neoliberalism, but Barnett's( 2005) call for 'bottom-up governmentality' is taken seriously in order to avoid any deterministic interpretation. On the basis of this eclectic perspective on governmentality, this article presents empirical findings that may suggest a contestation over community between ordinary citizens and civil society activists. More specifically, ordinary citizen participants prioritize place-based, on-the-ground community experiences that are built on common cultivation practices, whereas civil society activists tend to consider community garden as a teleological governmental technology generative of particular citizen subjects. Civic community garden advocacy as such aims to address social, economic, and spatial problems that neoliberalsim has produced, but it also appears to be in a close association with neoliberal urban policy. Thus, the community activism's meaningfulness lies in its active intervention to neoliberal urban policy, but a gap between ordinary practical achievements and civic activism can be a potential danger to urban community policy. On the basis of this discussion, this article asks more detailed investigations about the taken-for-granted positivity of urban community (re)vitalization programs, and also examinations on whether and how such projects generates emergent tensions between ordinary achievements and policy prescriptions.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.117-129
• /
• 2018

With the changing of social needs and paradigms, citizens are concerned about aesthetic and cultural community gardens from productive urban farms in Korea. It is still difficult, however, to cultivate a beautiful garden with a community to design, install and manage it. Therefore, this study analyzed the community garden design guidelines of other countries to derive the characteristics and implications. The research method analyzed six guidelines for community garden design in the UK, Canada, the USA, Australia and Japan. As a result of the study, most community garden design guidelines are opened freely via on-line service. The guidelines are composed with chronological processes such as intro, site selection, design, construction and maintenance. The introduction section treats definition, purpose, meaning, efficiency and success factors for community gardens. Site selection emphasizes site conditions (soil, light, shadow, water, etc.), landholding and insurance. The design section, however, lacks adequate drawings and case images. These guidelines offer little explanation with few illustrations and sentences. Construction sections explain about plantings, facilities, expense and details. The maintenance guidelines of community gardens contain how to control members, funding, harvesting, pests and plants. In addition, some guidelines include vandalism, organic cultivation methods, recording and advertisement. Lastly, the appendix contains a variety of checklists, administrative documents, guidelines, drawings, and contacts. This study will help understand the trends and characteristics of overseas community gardens design guidelines so as to also supply directions for guidelines to be introduced in Korea.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture Conference
• /
• 2017.10a
• /
• pp.76-78
• /
• 2017

본 연구는 비산 2 3동의 골목정원 조성지역과 비조성지역의 주민들을 대상으로 골목현황 및 주민의식을 분석하고, 이를 통해 골목정원 조성이 골목환경에 미치는 영향을 분석하고자 하였다. 연구결과를 살펴보면, 조성지역은 11개의 골목정원과 22개의 주제정원이 조성되어 있으며, 비조성지역은 서부시장을 중심으로 한 프랜차이즈 특화거리가 조성 중에 있다. 골목환경 구성요소의 중요도는 두 지역 모두 조명시설, CCTV 등 안전과 관련된 항목이 높게 평가되었으며, '공방 등 체험, 전시 및 공연시설', '텃밭', '항아리, 장식품 등 조형물' 등 개인 여가생활과 관련된 항목은 낮게 분석되었다. 만족도의 경우 조성지역은 골목정원 조성으로 개선된 조명시설, 초화류 등과 같은 항목이 높게 나타났다. 비조성지역의 경우 19개 항목의 만족도가 모두 낮게 분석되어 전반적으로 골목환경에 대해 불만족하는 것으로 분석되었다. 이를 바탕으로 개선방안을 제시하면, 조성지역은 CCTV 추가설치 및 빈집정비를 통해 골목의 안전성 확보와 휴게 및 교류공간 조성이 필요할 것으로 판단된다. 비조성지역의 경우 전반적인 골목환경 개선이 필요하며, 조명시설의 추가 설치가 필요할 것으로 사료된다.

• Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.63-76
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to identify effect in how urban garden is run by different operators in Korea, and consequently how it determines the level of community formation among urban garden users. Based on this analysis, the study is intended to present some points as to how to better manage urban garden. The operators are divided into three types: public, public-private partnership and private. The study interviewed each operating entity and surveyed garden users to gauge the extent to which communities are developed. After the ANOVA analysis and Scheffe post-hoc analysis, it was found that the levels of community formation among users of public and public-private partnership urban gardens were similar (so can be grouped together), whereas that of private urban garden users was higher (separated as another group). However, this study found no meaningful differences in the level of community formation among all types of urban garden in a local community. Some key suggestions are made as a result. First, as for the public and public-private partnership types of urban garden, it is necessary to foster leaders to build a community. Next, it is worth noting the potential of public-private partnership in realizing community revival through urban garden. The last suggestion is that, generally, the urban garden has only little influence on community formation in a local area so far, thus more practical consideration needs to be given to enhance the role of urban garden in a local community.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.23-34
• /
• 2017

This study focused on a planned site located in Gosangol Village in Daegu Metropolitan City that aims to build an urban agricultural park combining urban agriculture and urban park for the sustainable realization of urban agriculture. Accordingly, this study has significance in two perspectives: firstly, suggesting development strategies to be considered when building an urban agricultural park as a theme park, and secondly, presenting guidelines for spatial programs and facilities to be introduced for actual applications. The results are as follows. Firstly, building an urban agricultural park fills a role as a local community space prompted by the demand-oriented evolution of urban parks, and agricultural behaviors to be incorporated in the theme. In this context, 'building an urban agricultural space focusing on sustainability', 'constructing green space systems focusing on agricultural landscape', and 'structuring leisure spaces for communications in the community' are presented as development strategies. Secondly, key functions that an urban agricultural park should have include production and trade of agricultural products on the production side, soil preservation, resource cycling and green space provision on the environmental side, leisure and experience, community vitalization, education, and social security on the social and cultural side, and entertainment functions, ecological functions, and protective functions as urban park functionality. Thirdly, key facilities needed when building an urban agricultural park include urban agricultural facilities other than park management facilities, landscape facilities, recreational facilities, sports facilities, educational facilities, and convenient facilities, and family gardens as the key facility of the urban agricultural park should be scaled in consideration of various purposes and behaviors of their use. This study has a limitation that the subject site was limited to a specific area but has significance in that it presented a planning model for the spatial structuring of park-type urban agriculture.