DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Evaluation of Physical Environmental Factors in Urban Parks for Healthy City - Focus on Seoul -

건강증진을 위한 도시공원의 물리적 환경요소 평가 - 서울시를 대상으로 -

  • Received : 2020.06.09
  • Accepted : 2020.08.10
  • Published : 2020.08.31

Abstract

This study quantitatively and qualitatively analyzes the physical environment for health promotion in urban parks by indicators that were selected in consideration of overseas cases and previous studies. To evenly distribute the areas to be evaluated by region, Seodaemun Independence Park, Hongneung Park, Gocheok Park, Sillim Park, Cheongdam Park, Gaepo Park, and Sungin Park were selected among the old neighborhood parks already established in Seoul. The evaluation indicators consist of quantitative indicators (12 factors classified into the three categories of the surrounding environment, the park characteristics, and the park facilities) and qualitative indicators (14 factors classified according to the five categories of accessibility, safety, convenience, activities, and amenities). These indicators were selected after conducting advisory meetings with experts in the field. The physical environment perception factors were evaluated by experts and investigators by field inspections and were rated on a three-point scale (high, medium, low). According to the results of the analysis, first, not only were exercise facilities and trails, but also various factors which support health activities, such as rest areas, leisure spots, and cultural facilities, as well as accessibility, cleanliness, and drinking water facilities are important indicators for health promotion. Second, even if the requirements are met for quantitative factors, several inconveniences hinder the actual implementation or use in the qualitative evaluation. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative evaluations must be simultaneously performed for the proper judging of the physical environment of a park. Third, upon conducting a qualitative evaluation of the physical environmental factors, score differences depended on the evaluated categories in each park. These differences show that indirect indicators, such as accessibility, safety, and facility convenience are insufficiently equipped compared to direct indicators, such as activity, which includes exercise facilities and fitness centers for health promotion. As the utilization rate of parks is increasing due to COVID-19, more efforts should be made to improve park services in the post-corona era. To promote such services, it is necessary to regularly evaluate parks based on both quantitative and qualitative indicators and to contemplate services not only through direct factors but also indirect factors and security measures.

본 연구는 건강증진을 위한 도시공원 평가하기 위해 물리적 환경 요소를 해외사례와 선행연구를 통해 지표를 선정하고, 이를 정량적·정성적으로 분석하였다. 조사대상지는 서울시에 조성된 근린공원을 지역적 분배를 고려하여 서대문독립공원, 홍릉근린공원, 고척근린공원, 신림근린공원, 청담근린공원, 개포근린공원, 숭인근린공원 7개이다. 평가 지표는 정량적 지표 (공원의 배후지역 환경, 공원 특성, 공원 시설물 3가지 분류에 따른 12가지 요소), 정성적 지표(접근성, 안전성, 편의성, 활동성, 어메니티 5가지 분류에 따른 14가지 요소)를 선정하였다. 지표 선정방법은 전문가 자문회의를 통해 선정하였으며, 물리적 환경 인식 요소의 평가방법은 전문가와 조사원이 현장관찰을 통해 3점 척도(상·중·하)로 조사하였다. 분석결과, 첫째, 건강증진을 위한 지표는 운동시설이나 산책로 뿐 아니라, 휴식공간, 여가 및 문화시설, 접근성, 청결, 식수대 등 건강 활동을 지원하는 다양한 요소들이 주요한 지표임을 알았다. 둘째, 정량적인 지표로는 요건을 갖추고 있다 할지라도 정성적인 평가에서는 실제 구현시키거나, 이용하는데 불편함이 많아 공원의 물리적 환경에 대한 정량적 정성적 평가가 동시에 이루어져야 한다. 셋째, 물리적 환경요소에 대한 정성적 평가 결과 유형별, 공원별 점수차가 나타났는데, 건강증진을 위한 운동시설, 체력단련시설 등 활동성보다는 접근성, 안전성, 편의성과 같은 간접적 지표가 부족한 것으로 나타났다. 최근 COVID-19 등으로 공원 이용률이 증가하고 있고, 포스트 코로나 시대에는 공원의 서비스 증진을 위해 더욱 노력해야 한다. 이를 위해 정기적으로 정량적·정성적 지표를 평가하여 공원의 서비스를 증진시키고, 직접적 요인 뿐 아니라 간접적·보안적인 지표들에 대한 서비스 고려가 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Baek, S. K. and K. H. Park(2014). Associations between characteristics of green spaces, physical activity and health-Focusing on the case study of Changwon city. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 42(3): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2014.42.3.001
  2. IFPRA(2013) Benefits of Urban Parks: A Systematic Review. Copenhagen & Alnarp.
  3. Jang, C. K., S. G. Jung and W. S. Lee(2016) Influence of physical environment perception on park use for health improvement-Focused on neighborhood parks in Suseong-gu, Daegu city -. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 44(5): 68-80. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2016.44.5.068
  4. Kim, M. H., D. H. Oh and Y. H. Hwang(2012) Factors influencing urban park average length of stay. International Journal of Tourism Sciences 36(6): 275-289.
  5. Kim, Y. H. and E. Y. Seong(2013) Policy Measures for Creating Healthy Neighborhood Environment. Auri.
  6. Kim, Y. I. and J. G. Kim(2011) Citizens' perception and satisfaction for urban parks and greens: A case study of Anyang city, Bucheon city and Uijeongbu city in Korea. Journal of Korea Planners Association 46(1): 157-170.
  7. Lee, K. H. and S. K. Kim(2011) The development of healthy cities indicators for urban regeneration and the relative importance of the indicators through experts’ assessment - Focused on architects & urban planners’ survey. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea Urban Design 12(5): 137-150.
  8. Lee, M. H., H. S. Song, M. Y. Jang, M. J. Cho and M. S. Choi(2014) Planning process and organization of the healthy city in New York city - Focusing on the active design guidelines'. Journal of Korea Planning Association 49(4): 17-36.
  9. Lee, S. H. (2008) A Study on the Establishment of Indicators for Healthy-Cities Plan. Master's Thesis, Gyeongsang National University.
  10. Lee, W. S., K. H. Park, E. J. Kim and T. H. Kim(2015) The correlates of neighborhood-based physical environment on park use, physical activity, and health: Focused on Uichang and Seongsan in Changwon city. Journal of Korea Planners Association 50(6): 71-88. https://doi.org/10.17208/jkpa.2015.10.50.6.71
  11. Moon, H. S. and S. B. Kim(2009) A study on the utilization of green spaces in Daegu city as the place for physical activities improving health. Journal of Environmental Science International, 18(11): 1199- 1206. https://doi.org/10.5322/JES.2009.18.11.1199
  12. Nam, E. W. (2007) Review and prospective of the heathy cities in Korea. Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion 24(2): 123-134.
  13. NYC(2010) Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health Design. City of New York.
  14. Park, J. K., R. H. Lim, Y. B. Ji and H. J. Shin(2001) An analysis of form and an extent of satisfaction for the people using park(by Mansuck Park in Suwon City). Korean Journal of Lesure, Recreation & Park 21: 129-152.
  15. Park, K. H., W. S. Lee, T. H. Kim and E. J. Kim(2014) Effect of satisfaction in neighborhood park environments on physical activity and health -The case of Seongsan-gu and Uichang-gu in Changwon city-. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 42(3): 64-75. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2014.42.3.064
  16. Park, S. B., S. H. Kim, J. C. Nam, Y. J. Gang, K. C. Lee and S. K. Kim(1999) Establishment of development indicators for park based on post-use evaluation of urban parks- Case of Amnam Park in Busan. Research Report of Dong-A University's Institute of Environmental Problem Studies 22(2): 119-131.
  17. Park, Y. E., W. S. Lee, S. G. Jung and K. H. Park(2015) The effect of environmental perception in neighborhood park on user's recognition of health improvement-Focusing on 8 neighborhood parks in Changwon city. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 43(1): 54-68. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2015.43.1.054
  18. Seoul(2010) The Survey of Park Satisfiction in Seoul Metropolitan Government.
  19. Yoo, S. H. (2016) Application of qualitative multi-methods for urban health research on perceived environments: The case of built environment and physical activity. Seoul Stud 17(1): 147-161.
  20. http://healthyactivebydesign.com.au/about-healthy-active-design(Healthy by Design)
  21. http://porturbanism.com/(City Loop Park)
  22. https://www.sportengland.org/(England Active Design)