• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.74-86
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study was to deduce the landscape evaluation indices that can be applied from the preparation for the registration of major national farm/fishery heritages to post-management. For this purpose, the Delphi survey was performed on experts. From August to November in 2014, the primary open survey, secondary open survey, and tertiary closed survey were performed to gather opinions from 28 experts, 25 experts, and 29 experts, respectively. As a result, the landscape evaluation indices for farm/fishery heritage consisted of five areas of evaluation, ten items of evaluation, and 40 indices of evaluation. The areas of evaluation were rurality, authenticity, aesthetics, tourism potentials, and locality. Rurality was classified into rurality of farm/fishery towns and nostalgia. Authenticity was classified into objective authenticity and existential authenticity. Aesthetics was classified into attractiveness and harmony. Tourism potentials were classified into value of resources and value of usability. Locality was divided into physical originality and cultural identity. The study made the following findings: first, the general grounds of farm/fishery landscape evaluation cannot be applied when evaluating the quality of landscapes of farm/fishery heritage, as their value as a cultural heritage should be considered. Second, the new indices valued emotional factors in addition to the physical factors considered by the existing farm/fishery landscapes. The new indices involved a more expanded concept of landscapes as it also considers everyday or temporary activities, including the farm/fishery activities of local people or participation in festivals and experience programs. Third, farm/fishery heritage focuses on the lives of local people, as it involves both the synchronic and the diachronic perspectives to see what is currently visible and what is no longer visible. This brings into consideration not only the farms and the natural environments but also their relationships with the villages, especially the residential areas. Finally, the indices reflected both the farm/fishery heritage's value as cultural heritage and its value for tourism. They derived temporary and dynamic landscapes, including the trading activities of local specialty markets in relation to the production landscapes. However, further studies should be conducted as this study could not rate the relative importance of indices or compare the total scores of landscapes without the weight of each item.