• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.46-56
• /
• 2020

The 88 Olympic Park is a monumental urban park in Seoul, developed to commemorate South Korea's hosting of the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games. Initially conceived to emphasize the event slogan, 'Cultural Olympics,' which was driven by the Korean government, the park, already designed and constructed by 1986, was reconfigured into a sculpture park following two international outdoor sculpture Olympiads and an invitational sculpture exhibition. This study takes a look at the process of redesigning the park into sculpture park and the socio-political discussions surrounding such a process, in order to reconsider the significance of the 88 Seoul Olympic Park with regards to Korean landscape architectural history. Several discussions within Korean society arose during the redesign process. First, there were critiques on the artwork selection during the early phase of the project. Second, issues regarding the conservation of the national heritage site, Mongchon-tosung, located within the park, gave rise to a larger discourse on heritage preservation in Seoul. Third, discussions regarding the formation of the park identity, or lack thereof, prevalent. Through this study, the 88 Seoul Olympic Park presents itself as an example where large park construction in Seoul caused discussions regarding globalization, nationalism, publicness and art to be brought forth. This paper concludes that the 88 Seoul Olympic Park is a cultural landscape that requires further examination and exploration as it provides rich historical context for understanding the history of cultural and artistic practices in Korean urban landscapes.

• Journal of People, Plants, and Environment
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.119-135
• /
• 2021

Background and objective: This study was conducted to identify the components of kindergartener horticultural education by deriving objective components of horticultural education using the Delphi survey method, and then to provide basic data that can be used when creating horticultural programs in the regular curriculum. Methods: A total of 32 experts including professors of early childhood education, kindergarten directors, horticultural therapy professors, and horticultural therapists were selected as the Delphi panel. Of the 32 selected, only 29 answered all three rounds of the surveys. For the first round of the survey, an open-ended questionnaire, was used, and in the second and third rounds closed-ended questionnaires were used. Results: Results indicated that under the category of the goals of horticultural education, there were 7 items related to the current problems of horticultural education, 16 items related to the need for horticultural education in the smart age, 18 items related to the direction of horticultural education, and 5 items related to the areas most suitable for horticulture education for young children in the Nuri Curriculum. Results in the category of the implementation of horticultural education indicated that 2 items related to horticultural education hours, 3 items related to the venue for horticultural education, 2 items related to the activity types applicable to the Nuri Curriculum, and 4 items related to the objects of horticultural activities were derived. As the current problems of horticultural education, the following items were identified: event-oriented activity (M = 4.24) and lack of kindergarten teachers' opportunities for systematic gardening education (M = 4.21). The results related to the necessity of horticultural education indicated the following items: education on respect for life through caring (M = 4.59), emotional intelligence and stability (M = 4.55), directly experience of the growth process of plants (M = 4.55), and development of the five senses (M = 4.55). Finally, within the direction of horticultural education: nurturing the desire to live with nature (M = 4.50), and learning about life (M = 4.44) was identified, which had higher averages. Within the areas of the Nuri Curriculum, which is most consistent with horticultural education, nature exploration (M = 4.69) and the integration of all areas (M = 4.59) were derived as priorities. Also, regarding the implementation of horticultural education, the following items were derived as the priority from the expert group: 30-40 minutes (M = 4.14) and 40-50 minutes (M = 4.14) for class periods, outdoor garden in a kindergarten(M = 4.66) for the venue of gardening education, outside play (M = 4.59) for the activity type, and vegetable crops (M = 4.55) for the objects of gardening activities. Conclusion: It is significant that the goal and implementation of kindergartner horticultural education were objectively derived through collecting opinions of expert panels. Based on the results of this study, a horticultural education program for kindergarten teachers should be implemented.