JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Awareness of Agricultural Technology Center`s Role and Function in Urban and Rural Complex City - Focusing on Comparison of Awareness between Agriculturalist and Nonagriculturalist -
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Awareness of Agricultural Technology Center`s Role and Function in Urban and Rural Complex City - Focusing on Comparison of Awareness between Agriculturalist and Nonagriculturalist -
Choi, Soo-Ho; Lee, Seung-Hyun; Kang, Eun-Jee; Kim, Young-Geun;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Agricultural Technology Center is an education center to provide agriculturalists with information and technology related with agriculture. As domestic and international environment of agriculture and rural area is changing, functions and roles of Agricultural Technology Center are evolving according to stream of times. In 1995, a new urban and rural complex city was created for symbiotic relationship between city and rural area, As a result, user group of Agricultural Technology Center expanded to nonagriculturalists. Though the change of agricultural extension service is necessary to perform extended functions of rural area and to satisfy needs of new group of users, it is difficult to find enough studies on new functions and roles of Agricultural Technology Center to manage the service change. Therefore, this study is aimed to suggest new functions and roles of Agricultural Technology Center according to stream of times. This study were surveyed through questionnaire targeting users of Namyangju Agricultural Technology Center to compare user group awareness of Agricultural Technology Center in urban and rural complex city. According to this study result, while main purpose of agriculturalists` visiting at Agricultural Technology Center was participating in education programs related with agriculture. In contrast, nonagriculturalists usually visited the center for agricultural understanding, leisure activities, and children education, participating in field work programs. From the survey result of required functions of the center, it was revealed that nonagriculturalists expected urban agriculture, research for living improvement in rural area, adjustment education for returning farmer, and function of farming promotion, comparing agriculturalists. It is verified that this difference of user group awareness reflects the necessity that Agricultural Technology Center should change services and accept increasing use of nonagriculturalists with new functions and roles.
 Keywords
Urban and Rural Complex City;function of Agricultural Technology Center. agricultural extension services;agriculturalist;nonagriculturalist;user awareness;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
경기개발연구원. (1997). 경기도 도농복합시의 행정수요 분석과 기능 재조정방안에 관한 연구.

2.
김만수. (2011). 경기도 농촌지도사업의 통합과 과제. 건국대학교대학원 박사학위논문.

3.
김선기. (1995). 통합시의 배경과 과제. 도시문제, 30(316), 9-18.

4.
김영, & 이강훈. (1997). 통합시 도시계획의 필요성과 과제. 공간과 사회, 8, 58-79.

5.
김재호, & 김성수. (1995). 지방화시대 시군농촌지도소의 역할과 발전방향. 한국농촌지도학회지, 2(2), 109-116.

6.
김주숙, & 김은영. (2003). 도농복합시 농촌주민의 갈등요인 및 해결방안에 관한 연구: 구미, 익산, 안성시를 중심으로. 농촌사회, 13(1), 85-114.

7.
김진화. (2007). 농촌지도사업 명칭의 이미지 및 적합성 분석. 농업교육과 인적자원개발, 39(1), 137-165.

8.
남양주시농업기술센터. (2010). 남양주농업 명품화 전략.

9.
민철기. (2002). 농촌사회 변동에 따른 농촌지도사업에 관한 연구. 한남대학교 지역개발대학원 석사학위논문.

10.
송미령, 박시현, 이규천, & 성주인. (2002). 도.농 통합형 농촌 정주 기반 구축방안 연구. 한국농촌경제연구원.

11.
아시아뉴스통신. (2014. 8. 19). 이인영. 청주시, 로컬푸드 직거래장터 등 도농교류 활성화 중점추진.

12.
오영석, & 이곤수. (2006). 삶의 질 관점에서 본 도농통합의 형평성효과: 경주시 사례. 한국정책과학학회보, 10(4), 159-180.

13.
이규환. (1994). 도.농통합의 도시정책. 도시문제, 29(313), 24-38.

14.
이근우. (2010). 지역 농업기술센터 운영의 문제점과 개선 방안. 경북대학교 행정대학원 석사학위논문.

15.
이범승. (2007). 한국의 농촌지도사업 개선방안에 관한 연구. 경기대학교 행정대학원 석사학위논문.

16.
임성일. (1994). 도.농통합형 도시행.재정의 과제. 도시문제, 29(307), 44-59.

17.
장태옥. (1994). 도농통합의 의의와 방향. 도시문제, 29(307), 9-20.

18.
조영철, & 송용섭. (2003). 농촌지도사업 혁신방안에 대한 지방 농촌지도공무원의 인식. 농업교육과 인적자원개발, 35(4), 87-97.

19.
채의석. (2012). 농업기술센터 조직유형과 조직역량에 대한 연구: 행정통합 시군의 사례를 중심으로. 가톨릭대학교 행정대학원 석사학위논문.

20.
Eicher, C. K. (2001). Africa's unfinished business: Building sustainable Agricultural research systems. staff paper no. 20001-10. East Lansing, Michigan, USA, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.

21.
Van Den Ban, A. W. & Hawkins, H. S. (1988). Agricultural Extension. scientific & Technical. London: Longman.

22.
Shortall, S. (2004). Social or economic goals, civic inclusion or exclusion? An analysis of rural development theory and practice. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), 110-124.

23.
Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 450-457. crossref(new window)