• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.749-749
• /
• 2017

최근 들어 사회문제 해결형 과학기술혁신 활동이 활성화되고 있다. 과학기술정보통신부에서 추진하는 국민생활연구사업, 그리고 혁신본부에서 기획하고 있는 사회문제 해결을 위한 다부처 공동 기획사업 등이 추진되고 있다. 사회문제 해결형 과학기술혁신은 사회문제 해결을 최우선 목표로 삼고 있기 때문에 수월한 과학기술지식의 창출, 산업경쟁력 강화를 위한 혁신과는 목표와 추진체제가 다르다. 사회문제 해결형 과학기술혁신은 사회혁신과 과학기술을 결합하는 활동이라고 할 수 있다. 이렇게 새로운 유형의 혁신활동이 등장하면서 이를 바라보는 다양한 관점이 존재하고 있다. 본 발표에서는 각 논의들을 정리하고 향후 사회문제 해결형 과학기술혁신의 발전방향을 제시한다. 여기서는 크게 3가지 분류로 사회문제 해결형 혁신을 보는 관점을 정리한다. 첫 번째는 전문가 중심의 관점(Innovation for people)이다. 이는 전문가가 분석과 논의를 통해 사회문제를 정의하고 그 대안을 제시하는 접근이다. 많은 과학기술전문가들이 가지고 있는 틀로서 선형모델에 입각한 논의이다. 때문에 혁신의 선형모델이 가지고 있는 문제점, 피드백의 부족, 현장에 대한 이해 부족 등과 같은 단점이 있다. 두 번째는 시민사회 중심의 관점(Innovation by people)이다. 이는 현장의 문제 상황에 있는 시민들이 문제를 정의하고 혁신활동을 주도해야 한다는 관점이다. 이 관점은 일반 시민을 과학기술혁신의 주체로 호명하고 실질적인 문제 해결에 참여시키면서 주류 과학기술의 미흡한 현장 지역 지향성을 비판하고 있다. 그러나 혁신의 논의가 지역에 한정되면서 규모 확대의 어려움을 겪는 경우가 많다. 장기 지속성을 확보하는 데에도 난점이 있다. 세 번째는 전문가와 시민의 협업 관점(Innovation with people)이다. 이는 시민성과 전문성의 결합을 통해 민주주의를 고양하고, 현장 지식과 전문 지식의 융합을 지향하는 접근이다. 또 리빙랩과 같은 추진 체제를 적극적으로 활용한다. 그러나 전문가와 시민사회의 협업을 지원하는 인프라와 지원체제가 부족하면 여러 문제점이 발생할 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 이런 관점들의 한계를 극복하기 위해서 국지적 문제해결과 국가적 문제 해결의 연계, 실험의 중요성 강조, 전문가와 최종 사용자 및 시민의 실질적 협업을 위한 기반 구축, 시스템 전환 프레임의 도입을 정책 방향으로 제시했다.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.65-98
• /
• 2016

Living Lab is being introduced and applied as an innovation model driven by social entities (residents, users, etc.) and as an innovation place based on local and field. This study analyzed three living lab cases of Bukchon IoT living lab, Seong-Daegol energy transition living lab, and Daejeon Geonneoyu project, which were designated as 'Living Lab' to solve local problems. We analyzed the local problem, the problem solving goal, the role of each participant and the subject, the living lab promotion system, the significance in each case. In addition, the types and characteristics of living labs were elucidated and future development plans were discussed. The result is as follow. First, each case has a tendency to link science technology and ICT with local problem solving though there is a difference between the technologies used. Second, local residents played a leading role in the whole living lab process from problem identification to technical experimentation, diffusion and application. Third, the role of the intermediaries commonly played an important role in the operation of the living lab. Last but not least, each case has different types of living lab. Bukchon IoT living lab being operated as a project by the government / municipality to create a living lab activity-base or to support actors' activities. On the other hand, the Seong-Daegol energy transition living lab and Daejeon Geonneoyu project were conducted by the civil society itself to define problems and explore technologies in order to solve local problems.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.284-294
• /
• 2020

As a solution to local and social problems, the active use of smart city living labs is becoming increasingly important. The answer to solving local and social problems lies in the citizen and the field. The purpose of this study is to establish a smart city living lab model based on citizen participation. In this study, smart city living lab model(4P-SCLLM) based on citizen participation was established through domestic and overseas living lab methodology and case analysis. In order to evaluate the systemicity and specificity of the 4P-SCLLM, a smart city living lab model, we recently compared it with the living lab process in Busan where smart city living lab is applied. As a result of analyzing, the analysis shows similar trends in each stage, and Busan's private sector showed a similar process to 4P-SCLLM On the other hand, public and private sector cooperation and support systems were found to be less than the 4P-SCLLM model And In technology and methodology, the 4P-SCLLM model is analyzed to have a living lab process that incorporates new technologies. In order to maintain the 4P-SCLLM continuously, first, participants and stakeholders need to participate actively and communicate while collaborating on the whole process from start to finish. Second, public awareness needs to be improved. Third, continuous citizenship verification of services is needed. Fourth, citizens' constant participation is needed. Through these implications, this study proposed 4P-SCLLM as a smart city living lab model suitable for the domestic situation.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.48 no.6
• /
• pp.1-15
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to propose a direction for designing and managing a smart park for realizing a smart green city and to present measures in the landscape field to foster related industries. The research process is as follows. First, the concept of a smart park was operationally defined through a literature review, and three principles to be considered in the process of creation and management were established. Second, in terms of the three principles, problems and implications for improvement were derived through an analysis of established cases of smart parks in new and pre-existing cities. Third, a pool of designs and management standards for each spatial component of a smart park was prepared through literature and case studies, and then further refined through brainstorming with experts in related fields. Fourth, measures were suggested to the government, local governments, and the landscape field to promote smart park creation and management. The main findings are as follows. First, the concept of a smart park is defined as "a park that contributes to securing the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of cities and local communities by supporting citizens' safe and pleasant use of parks and improving the management and operational efficiency by utilizing the digital, environment, and material technologies." Second, the three principles of smart parks are to improve the intrinsic value of parks, to improve the innovative functions of parks to solve urban problems, and to make the design, construction, and management process smart. Third, improvement implications were derived through the analysis of cases of smart parks creation in new and pre-existing cities. Fourth, the directions for smart park design and management were suggested in five aspects: green area, hydroponic facility area, road and plaza area, landscape facilities area, and park design method. Fifth, as for policy implications for revitalizing the construction and management of smart parks, the development of smart park policy business models by city growth stage, and park type, the promotion of pilot projects, the promotion of smart park projects in connection with the Korean New Deal policy, and smart park policies led by landscape experts were presented.