• Journal of People, Plants, and Environment
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.245-256
• /
• 2021

Background and objective: The vitalization of urban agriculture has increased various forms of experience-based education using school gardens, which raised the importance of school gardens in terms of value as well as the need to develop an implementation system for education-based agricultural experience service using school gardens. Thus, we reset the evaluation indicators from the previous study to establish objective evaluation indicators that enable quantitative comparison of school garden education services. Methods: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and direct question (DQ) surveys were conducted on 20 experts from October 12 to 19, 2020 after establishing the purpose and subjects of evaluation, and then the weights were calculated using the Expert Choice 2010 program. Results: First, we analyzed the problems of the previous indicators by categorizing the performance indicators and comparing and verifying them with six requirements of valuation. Then, we added 'welfare values' and established sub-indicators accordingly. The importance of value indicator in AHP was in the order of education values (0.544), health values (0.182), welfare values (0.164), environmental values (0.062), and economic values (0.049). The importance of environmental and economic values was relatively low, less than 0.1. The importance of sub-indicators was highest in cultivating character (0.144), followed by enhancing ecological sensitivity (0.141) > promoting mental health (0.134) > cultivating agricultural literacy (0.120) > improving social skills (0.104). And mitigating climate change in environmental values was lowest (0.009). Increase in income was the lowest (0.036). This can be regarded as the expression of change to increase the educational effect based on collective life and the connotative meaning of 'school'. In the case of DQ, the AHP weight and order were the same, but the environmental and economic values were relatively low, and the result was different from AHP weight. For sub-indicators, the importance in DQ was highest in promoting mental health (0.136), followed by promoting physical health (0.085), ]cultivating character (0.082), social integration (0.072), and enhancing ecological sensitivity (0.071). After reviewing related experts, we came up with 5 evaluation indicators and 16 sub-indicators for school garden education service, which are objective evaluation indicators that enable quantitative comparison. Conclusion: In the future, we will validate the socioeconomic values of school garden education services and contribute to revitalizing school gardens by establishing policy alternatives for effective operation and management of school gardens.

• 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.