도시기본계획 수립 과정에 있어 참여그룹의 역할 및 평가지표에 관한 연구

Abstract

우리나라에 1981년 도시기본계획 제도가 처음 도입된 것은 무분별한 도시화를 막고 도시 공간의 효율적 이용과 장기적 계획 수립을 용이하게 하기 위한 것이었 다. 계획가들은 도시기본계획의 위상 제고를 위해 상위 계획과의 정합성, 다른 법 령에 의해 수립되는 부문별 계획과의 연계성, 하위 계획에 대한 지침성을 강화하고 자 했다. 이런 노력들은 두 가지 측면에서 진행되었다. 첫째는 계획 수립 측면에서 도시기본계획의 인구, 토지이용 계획 등 도시기본계획 수립에 필요한 각종 변수를 보다 정확하게 추계하기 위한 노력이었고, 둘째는 계획 운용 측면에서 도시기본계 획의 위상을 법·제도적으로 확립 받기 위한 노력으로 요약될 수 있다. 문제는 이러한 노력에도 불구하고 도시기본계획은 법정 최상위 공간계획의 위상 을 갖기 어려웠다. 이는 주로 1990년대 초 지방자치제 도입으로 형성된 계획 외적 요인 때문이었다. 도시기본계획이 제자리를 찾기 위해서는 내적 변수의 정교함을 갖추는 것과 함께 계획 외적 요인인 정치권력과 행정권위를 제어할 수 있는 절차 적 민주성을 확보하는 것이 필요하다. 계획 수립 이후 계획의 권위를 유지하기 위 해 절차적 민주성은 필수 요소다. 계획 과정에서 주민참여를 지속적, 실질적으로 보장할수록 절차적 민주성은 높아진다. 이미 해외 선진 대도시들은 다양한 방법으로 시민참여의 기회를 보장하고 있다. 또한, 계획의 구성 측면에서도 기존의 정형화된 부문별 계획을 핵심 이슈별 전략계 획으로 빠르게 전환해 왔다. 우리나라도 이러한 도시기본계획 수립의 세계적 패러 다임 변화를 수용해 2009년 국토교통부는 「국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률」 개정을 통해 도시기본계획 승인권한을 지방자치단체장에게 이양했고, 2012년에는 「도시기본계획 수립지침」을 개정해 도시별 특성에 맞는 핵심 이슈별 목표 설정 과 주민참여, 지방의회 권한 확대 등 실효성 제고를 위한 다양한 법·제도적 개선을 선행하였다. 본 연구에서는 위의 법·제도가 개선된 이후 수립된 첫 번째 사례인 2030서울플 랜을 통해 도시기본계획 수립 과정에 있어 참여그룹별 역할 분석을 하였다. 전문가 설문조사를 병행해 실제 수립 단계별 참여그룹의 역할에 대한 인식조사를 실시하 였다. 또한, 시민참여가 궁극적으로 계획 위상을 제고하는데 필요한 분석항목을 도출하 고 분석항목별 중요도 분석을 통해 12개 세부지표를 도출하였다. 도시기본계획 수 립 과정에 미친 시민참여도를 평가하기 위해 각 지표별 가중치를 산정하여 참여형 도시기본계획 수립에 있어 관리방안과 평가기준을 제시하였다. 시민참여도의 분석항목 및 세부지표는 선행연구에 대한 고찰과 전문가 표적그룹 인터뷰(FGI)를 실시하여 최종적으로 도출하였다. 2030서울플랜 수립 과정에 직간 접적으로 참여한 전문가그룹(학계 및 시민사회)을 대상으로 계층분석법(AHP)을 활 용해 각 분석항목과 세부지표별 가중치를 도출하였다. 전문가 설문 결과에 대해 AHP분석을 통한 분석항목 중요도 분석 결과, 전문성, 실효성, 절차적 정당성, 민주성 순으로 중요도가 도출되었다. 이 중 학계 전문가 응답자는 실효성, 전문성, 절차적 정당성, 민주성의 순으로 중요도를 선택했고, 시 민사회 전문가 응답자는 절차적 정당성, 민주성, 전문성, 실효성의 순으로 중요도를 선택하여 상반된 결과를 보여줬다. 2030서울플랜이 시민참여라는 화두 속에서 수 립되었지만, 참여자들은 도시기본계획이 본연의 과제였던 ‘실효성’과 ‘전문성’에 더 주안점을 두고 있음이 나타났다. 본 연구 결과의 시사점을 향후 도시기본계획 수립 과정에 있어 시민참여에 대 한 효율적인 관리방안 수립과 평가라는 측면에서 살펴보았다. 첫째, 참여그룹의 출신에 따라 매우 상반된 결과가 나타났다. 도시기본계획 수 립에 있어 ‘실효성’과 ‘전문성’을 한 축으로 하고, ‘절차적 정당성’과 ‘민주성’을 한 축으로 나뉘어졌다. 그러나 도시기본계획의 ‘실효성’은 수립 과정에서 민주적 절차 에 따른 ‘절차적 정당성’을 획득하고 축적된 ‘전문성’과 조화를 이룰 때 제고되는 것임을 공유할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 도시기본계획 수립에 있어 시민참여는 확고한 대세라는 전제 하에 ‘참여형 도시기본계획 수립 과정’ 모델을 구축하는 것이 필요하다. 이를 위한 평가지표로서 4개의 분석항목과 12개의 세부지표별 가중치를 활용한 점수화 방안이 필요하다. 셋째, 도시기본계획 수립단계 중 특정 단계에서만 높게 평가된 시민참여에 대해 시민참여의 대표성 보완과 모든 단계에서 시민참여를 전면화하는 방안이 필요하다.|The policy of urban comprehensive plan has been firstly introduced to Korea in 1981 for the purpose of preventing indiscreet urbanization and facilitating efficient usage and long-term plan for urban space. The urban planners had intention to enhance the coherence with higher-level plan for the purpose of phase provision of urban comprehensive plan, the connectivity with plans for each different department established by different ordinances and the guideline for lower-level plans. These efforts were approached by two aspects. The first is the effort of estimating various variables required for establishing urban comprehensive plan including population of urban comprehensive plan and land use plan in a more precise way in the aspect of establishing plans. The second is the effort of establishing the law- and system-oriented status of urban comprehensive plan in the planning and managing aspect. The problem is that, despite these efforts, there were difficulties for establishing the status for urban comprehensive plan as the top priority legal space planning. This was mainly due to the external factors of plan which had been established from introducing municipality in early 1990’s. In order to recover its place for urban comprehensive plan, it is necessary to establish exquisiteness of internal variables as well as procedural democracy which is capable of managing political authority and administrative authority which are the exterior factors. Procedural democracy is essential in order to maintain the authority of planning after establishing one. Procedural democracy will be increased more and more when community participation is continuously and substantively practiced during the process of planning. The opportunity for community participation has been practiced in various methods in big cities of advanced countries. The composition of planning has been rapidly switched to major issue oriented strategy planning from standardized department oriented planning. Adopting the global paradigm changes in urban comprehensive plan, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in Korea has handed over the approval authority of urban comprehensive plan to local government by revising 「National Land Planning and Utilization Act」 in 2009. It also revised 「Guidelines for Urban comprehensive Plan」 in 2012 and proceeded the various improvements in law and system for the purpose of enhancing effectiveness including community participation, expanding local council authority and setting goals for each major issue for characteristic of each city. In this research, analysis of role for each participating group had been conducted for the process of establishing urban comprehensive plan through 2030 Seoul Plan, the first case established after the revision of the law and system above. Investigation on awareness had been also performed on the role of participating group for each actual level in parallel with the expert surveys. In addition, it has drawn the analysis items required for ultimately improving plan status by community participation and 12 detailed indexes have been drawn out through criticality analysis for each analysis group. In order to evaluate the community participation which affected the process of establishing urban comprehensive plan, the weighted value for each index has been computed and the management plan and evaluation standard has been proposed for the purpose of establishing urban comprehensive plan. Analysis items and detailed indexes for community participation had been finally drawn out by performing consideration upon existing researches and Focus Group Interview. The weighted value of each analysis item and detailed index had been drawn out by utilizing Analytic Hierarchy Process for the expert group (academia or communities) which had been directly and indirectly involved in the process of establishing 2030 Seoul Plan. The criticality analysis on analysis item through AHP analysis regarding expert survey yields that professionalism is accounted for the most important factor followed by effectiveness, procedural legitimacy and democracy. The result was conflicting: the academia experts put the priority on importance in the order of effectiveness, professionalism, procedural legitimacy and democracy, while community experts had procedural legitimacy, democracy, professionalism and effectiveness. Despite the fact that 2030 Seoul Plan was established with community participation, the participants actually put more emphasis on effectiveness and professionalism which were the original task for urban comprehensive plan. The implication of this research had been reviewed in the aspect of establishment and evaluation on effective management plan regarding community participation for establishing future urban comprehensive plan. First, the results were conflicting depending on the type of the community group. One group was focused on ‘effectiveness’ and ‘professionalism’, while the other was focused on ‘procedural legitimacy’ and ‘democracy’. On the other hand, it should be reminded that ‘effectiveness’ of urban comprehensive plan can be enhanced when accumulated ‘professionalism’ is in harmony with ‘procedural legitimacy’ in accordance with the democratic process during the establishment. Second, it is necessary to establish a model for ‘process of establishing participating urban comprehensive plan’ under the premise that community participation is a comprehensive trend for establishing urban comprehensive plan. Numbering means of the weighted value for 4 analysis items and 12 detailed indexes is required in this regard. Third, community participation has high performance in specific stages only for the process of establishing urban comprehensive plan, from which it requires a plan of promoting community participation in every process and a plan of enhancing representativeness of community participation.; The policy of urban comprehensive plan has been firstly introduced to Korea in 1981 for the purpose of preventing indiscreet urbanization and facilitating efficient usage and long-term plan for urban space. The urban planners had intention to enhance the coherence with higher-level plan for the purpose of phase provision of urban comprehensive plan, the connectivity with plans for each different department established by different ordinances and the guideline for lower-level plans. These efforts were approached by two aspects. The first is the effort of estimating various variables required for establishing urban comprehensive plan including population of urban comprehensive plan and land use plan in a more precise way in the aspect of establishing plans. The second is the effort of establishing the law- and system-oriented status of urban comprehensive plan in the planning and managing aspect. The problem is that, despite these efforts, there were difficulties for establishing the status for urban comprehensive plan as the top priority legal space planning. This was mainly due to the external factors of plan which had been established from introducing municipality in early 1990’s. In order to recover its place for urban comprehensive plan, it is necessary to establish exquisiteness of internal variables as well as procedural democracy which is capable of managing political authority and administrative authority which are the exterior factors. Procedural democracy is essential in order to maintain the authority of planning after establishing one. Procedural democracy will be increased more and more when community participation is continuously and substantively practiced during the process of planning. The opportunity for community participation has been practiced in various methods in big cities of advanced countries. The composition of planning has been rapidly switched to major issue oriented strategy planning from standardized department oriented planning. Adopting the global paradigm changes in urban comprehensive plan, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in Korea has handed over the approval authority of urban comprehensive plan to local government by revising 「National Land Planning and Utilization Act」 in 2009. It also revised 「Guidelines for Urban comprehensive Plan」 in 2012 and proceeded the various improvements in law and system for the purpose of enhancing effectiveness including community participation, expanding local council authority and setting goals for each major issue for characteristic of each city. In this research, analysis of role for each participating group had been conducted for the process of establishing urban comprehensive plan through 2030 Seoul Plan, the first case established after the revision of the law and system above. Investigation on awareness had been also performed on the role of participating group for each actual level in parallel with the expert surveys. In addition, it has drawn the analysis items required for ultimately improving plan status by community participation and 12 detailed indexes have been drawn out through criticality analysis for each analysis group. In order to evaluate the community participation which affected the process of establishing urban comprehensive plan, the weighted value for each index has been computed and the management plan and evaluation standard has been proposed for the purpose of establishing urban comprehensive plan. Analysis items and detailed indexes for community participation had been finally drawn out by performing consideration upon existing researches and Focus Group Interview. The weighted value of each analysis item and detailed index had been drawn out by utilizing Analytic Hierarchy Process for the expert group (academia or communities) which had been directly and indirectly involved in the process of establishing 2030 Seoul Plan. The criticality analysis on analysis item through AHP analysis regarding expert survey yields that professionalism is accounted for the most important factor followed by effectiveness, procedural legitimacy and democracy. The result was conflicting: the academia experts put the priority on importance in the order of effectiveness, professionalism, procedural legitimacy and democracy, while community experts had procedural legitimacy, democracy, professionalism and effectiveness. Despite the fact that 2030 Seoul Plan was established with community participation, the participants actually put more emphasis on effectiveness and professionalism which were the original task for urban comprehensive plan. The implication of this research had been reviewed in the aspect of establishment and evaluation on effective management plan regarding community participation for establishing future urban comprehensive plan. First, the results were conflicting depending on the type of the community group. One group was focused on ‘effectiveness’ and ‘professionalism’, while the other was focused on ‘procedural legitimacy’ and ‘democracy’. On the other hand, it should be reminded that ‘effectiveness’ of urban comprehensive plan can be enhanced when accumulated ‘professionalism’ is in harmony with ‘procedural legitimacy’ in accordance with the democratic process during the establishment. Second, it is necessary to establish a model for ‘process of establishing participating urban comprehensive plan’ under the premise that community participation is a comprehensive trend for establishing urban comprehensive plan. Numbering means of the weighted value for 4 analysis items and 12 detailed indexes is required in this regard. Third, community participation has high performance in specific stages only for the process of establishing urban comprehensive plan, from which it requires a plan of promoting community participation in every process and a plan of enhancing representativeness of community participation.