지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2016.2
- 수록면
- 1 - 139 (139page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The objective of this study is to review the outcomes of the cultural district policy of Seoul and to present suggestions for its improvement. Currently, Seoul Metropolitan Government is operating two cultural districts: Insa-dong and Daehak-ro. Insa-dong and Daehak-ro were
designated as cultural districts in 2001 and 2004 respectively. Although they have been operated according to the comprehensive management plans as stipulated by the relevant laws, these two cultural districts haven"t had much success. Specifically speaking, despite all outward appearances of growth, Insa-dong and Daehak-ro had to undergo a considerable change in their regional characteristics after being designated as cultural districts.
What triggered these unfavourable changes despite all the management plans established under laws and periodic reviews done every three years? This study analyzes the institutional factors that caused such changes.
This study argues that as the cultural district policy was introduced and operated with a focus on Insa-dong from the outset, it became difficult to apply this model in other regions. In other words, the focus of the management plan has been put on facility maintenance in order to protect traditional businesses, and this made inevitable the changes in the regional characteristics of the areas which were designated as cultural districts. The failure to encourage residents to act as the protector of regional characteristics was another factor that triggered these changes. Based on these findings, this study aims to thoroughly analyze the way the cultural district policy has worked so far and present some suggestions for the future implementation of this policy.
The key suggestions are as follows.
First, the scope of the cultural districts needs to be expanded. As the cultural district policy of Seoul has been operated with a focus on Insa-dong, only two regions - Insa-dong and Daehak-ro - were designated and have been operated as cultural districts so far. It is necessary to foster an institutional environment which facilitates designation of more regions as cultural districts, and thereby to establish the cultural district policy as one of the region management policies.
Second, the focus of the cultural district policy should be put on activities rather than on facilities. The cultural district policy has been operated with a focus on facility maintenance so far. However, the role of the facilities in the regional community has changed significantly. This is the reason why the cultural district policy should be revised so that it can encourage residents" activities, rather than putting focus on facility maintenance.
Third, the main actor of the cultural district policy needs to be changed as well. Currently, Seoul Metropolitan Government controls the whole process related to the cultural districts. For more effective implementation of the cultural district policy, the Seoul Metropolitan Government needs to give greater discretionary power to subordinate local governments, and shift its focus to supporting and monitoring the relevant efforts of these subordinate authorities. In addition, it is necessary to consider introducing some policies such as the preliminary cultural district policy to encourage more local governments to actively develop cultural districts so that more regions with diverse characteristics can be designated and managed as cultural districts.
designated as cultural districts in 2001 and 2004 respectively. Although they have been operated according to the comprehensive management plans as stipulated by the relevant laws, these two cultural districts haven"t had much success. Specifically speaking, despite all outward appearances of growth, Insa-dong and Daehak-ro had to undergo a considerable change in their regional characteristics after being designated as cultural districts.
What triggered these unfavourable changes despite all the management plans established under laws and periodic reviews done every three years? This study analyzes the institutional factors that caused such changes.
This study argues that as the cultural district policy was introduced and operated with a focus on Insa-dong from the outset, it became difficult to apply this model in other regions. In other words, the focus of the management plan has been put on facility maintenance in order to protect traditional businesses, and this made inevitable the changes in the regional characteristics of the areas which were designated as cultural districts. The failure to encourage residents to act as the protector of regional characteristics was another factor that triggered these changes. Based on these findings, this study aims to thoroughly analyze the way the cultural district policy has worked so far and present some suggestions for the future implementation of this policy.
The key suggestions are as follows.
First, the scope of the cultural districts needs to be expanded. As the cultural district policy of Seoul has been operated with a focus on Insa-dong, only two regions - Insa-dong and Daehak-ro - were designated and have been operated as cultural districts so far. It is necessary to foster an institutional environment which facilitates designation of more regions as cultural districts, and thereby to establish the cultural district policy as one of the region management policies.
Second, the focus of the cultural district policy should be put on activities rather than on facilities. The cultural district policy has been operated with a focus on facility maintenance so far. However, the role of the facilities in the regional community has changed significantly. This is the reason why the cultural district policy should be revised so that it can encourage residents" activities, rather than putting focus on facility maintenance.
Third, the main actor of the cultural district policy needs to be changed as well. Currently, Seoul Metropolitan Government controls the whole process related to the cultural districts. For more effective implementation of the cultural district policy, the Seoul Metropolitan Government needs to give greater discretionary power to subordinate local governments, and shift its focus to supporting and monitoring the relevant efforts of these subordinate authorities. In addition, it is necessary to consider introducing some policies such as the preliminary cultural district policy to encourage more local governments to actively develop cultural districts so that more regions with diverse characteristics can be designated and managed as cultural districts.
목차
[표지]
[요약]
[목차]
표
그림
[01 연구개요]
1_연구배경 및 목적
2_연구내용 및 방법
[02 제도분석]
1_제도현황
2_제도구성과 운영체계
[03 서울시 운영현황]
1_지구지정
2_지정내용
3_관리운영 실태
[04 운영성과와 문제원인]
1_운영성과 분석
2_문제원인 분석
[05 개선방안 토론]
1_선행연구 검토
2_전문가 포럼
[06 제도 개선방안]
1_개선방향
2_시행방안
3_관련 법 개정
[07 결론]
[참고문헌]
[Abstract]
[Contents]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
일본의 문화경제전략에 대한 연구: 문화정책의 변화를 중심으로
한국비교정부학보
2020 .01
-
윤석열 정부의 문화정책 방향성에 대한 재검토 : ‘K-콘텐츠’와 ‘지역개발’이라는 발전틀, 그리고 문화예술
한국사회
2024 .08
-
인사동 문화지구의 장소성 해석
휴양및경관연구
2016 .01
-
헌법상 문화국가원리의 실현과 문화재 보호 관련 법령의 법정책적 과제
한양법학
2023 .11
-
문화자치 - 그 의미와 조건
정책연구
2022 .06
-
지역의 문화가치와 공간성 인식에 관한 연구 –홍대와 인사동 주변지역을 중심으로-
주거환경
2019 .09
-
Neoliberal Reform, Cultural Policy Changes, and the Transformation of Cultural Industries in South Korea
아시아리뷰
2018 .02
-
Study on the Korean application of cultural accessibility and cultural arts education: focusing on French cultural policy
분석과 대안
2024 .02
-
Who Is the Real Winner in Cultural Industries? A Business Ecosystem Approach for Government Policies
무역연구
2023 .04
-
한국 정부 문화재 정책에 관한 고찰
한국교수불자연합학회지
2019 .01
-
문화복지의 헌법적 의의와 실천
중앙법학
2015 .06
-
국력으로서의 문화력 측정지표 모형 개발 및 G20 국가들에 대한 적용
한국IT서비스학회지
2019 .01
-
문화재의 의의와 범주
공법학연구
2020 .11
-
지역문화시설(작은도서관)의 문화적 영향 및 지역활성화 방안 연구
주거환경
2021 .06
-
문화영향평가 운영실태와 서울시 실행방안
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2021 .06
-
A study on the policy of Korean Cultural Industry
The Journals of Economics, Marketing & Management
2018 .06
-
지역문화진흥법 시대 지역문화지표의 수립에 관한 연구
관광레저연구
2018 .04
-
한국 전통의 표상 공간, 인사동의 형성
동아시아문화연구
2015 .02
-
문화매개(자)의 불확실성에 대한 사회학적 고찰: 문화정책과 문화산업 분야를 중심으로
문화와 사회
2019 .08
-
동북아시아 지역의 문화정책의 흐름과 교류의 방향성 모색
동북아 문화연구
2015 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
서울시 여성가족정책 효과분석 및 정책수요조사 : 서울시 여성안전정책을 중심으로
조영미
,
장진희
,
이수연
서울시 여성가족재단 연구사업보고서
2015
.08
식민주의 역사학과 ‘우리’ 안의 타율성론
강진원
역사비평
2016
.05
도시 내 모텔촌의 가로경관 특성 분석 : 신촌 모텔촌을 중심으로
박정환
,
권영상
한국도시설계학회지 도시설계
2017
.10
구조방정식을 이용한 권역별 상업가로요인과 유동인구수가 상가매출액에 미치는 영향 분석
유경훈
,
장성만
,
안영수
주택도시연구
2016
.12
역사문화환경 보존지역 개선을 위한 제안
박새암
,
한지만
대한건축학회 학술발표대회 논문집
2016
.10
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-359-002249079