전문가 델파이 조사를 통한 농촌경관 평가지표개발 연구(예산군을 사례로)

Abstract

최근 전원생활 양식 선호, 농업의 새로운 발전가능성 인식 등으로 귀농·귀촌 인구가 대폭 증가하고 있다. 농촌지역 지자체에서는 이러한 사회적 변화를 인식하여 농촌다움과 어메니티 발굴을 위해 경관계획 수립, 경관사업 시행 등 많은 노력을 기울이고 있다. 그러나 농촌경관 분야에 대한 사회적 관심은 도시보다 적어 경관계획을 위한 경관자원 조사방법, 계획지침, 계획대상, 계획수법 등 구체적인 내용에 대한 연구가 미비하고 적용사례 또한 매우 적은 실정이다. 농촌지역 지자체에서 체계적이며 일관된 경관계획을 수립하기에는 아직까지 어려움이 있으므로 농촌지역 실정에 맞는 경관계획 기준, 지표의 개발이 필요하다. 본 연구에서는 농촌지역의 체계적인 경관계획 및 관리를 위하여 농촌지역 경관을 형성하는 주요 공간을 유형화하고, 각각의 공간이 지닌 다양한 특성과 속성을 대표할 수 있는 평가지표를 도출하고자 하였다. 지역의 경관특성이 반영된 평가지표 도출을 위해서 본 연구의 공간적 범위를 충청남도 예산군으로 한정하고, 사례대상지의 경관특성에 대한 이해도가 높은 전문가를 선정하여 총 3회에 걸쳐 설문조사를 시행하였다. 이를 통해 물리적(객관적) 평가영역에서 14개, 비물리적(주관적) 평가영역에서 16개의 세부공간유형 및 평가지표가 도출되었다. 또한 공간유형과 평가지표간 중요도를 평가하였다. 설문과 중요도 평가를 통해 나타난 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 객관적, 주관적 평가영역에서 산림과 수공간은 자연경관을 형성하는 주요 공간유형으로 분류되었다. 중요도 평가결과 객관적, 주관적 경관영역 모두에서 가장 중요한 공간유형으로 나타났다. 이는 자연환경을 기반으로 하는 농촌지역의 특성이 반영된 결과이며 대상지의 경관을 형성하는 큰 축으로 가장 중요한 요소로 인지되고 있음을 알 수 있다. 둘째, 객관적, 주관적 경관에서 시가지과 생산유통단지가 인공경관의 주된 공간유형으로 선정되었다. 이는 대상지가 전형적인 농촌지역이지만 일부지역에 형성된 시가지와 농공단지와 같은 산업유통시설이 농촌경관형성에 영향을 주는 물리적, 주관적 공간영역으로서 일정부분을 차지하고 있음을 보여준다. 또한 중요도 평가에서 시가지의 가로(街路)는 객관적 경관영역에서보다 높은 중요도를 보였는데 시가지 가로의 형태, 색채, 가로변 건물 등이 농촌지역 시가지 경관에서 영향을 미치는 주된 요소임을 보여주었다. 셋째, 경작지는 농촌의 많은 면적을 차지하고 있지만 자연마을보다 객관적, 주관적 경관 모두에서 중요성이 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 따라서, 마을환경이 절대면적을 차지하고 있는 경작지보다 경관에 미치는 영향이 큰 것을 알 수 있었다. 넷째, 경작지는 크게 논, 과수원, 밭(시설재배), 밭(노지재배)으로 구분되었다. 경작지 세부유형간 면적과 중요도는 비례하지 않았으며 이는 경작지의 입지, 형태, 시각적 이용빈도에 따라 경관의 중요성이 평가될 수 있음을 보여주었다. 본 연구를 통해 도출된 평가지표는 경관계획수립 시 해당지역 경관의 합리적이며 일관된 평가가 가능할 것으로 기대된다. 또한 각 공간요소별 중요도 결과는 경관을 계획하고 관리하는데 있어 어느 지역과 공간유형에 우선순위를 두어야하는지에 대한 참고자료로 활용될 수 있을 것이며 사례대상지와 지리적, 공간적 유사성을 갖는 농촌지역에서도 연구결과가 반영될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.|Recently, the population returning to farm villages or the countryside is increasing based on the preference for rural life and new developmental potential of agriculture. Based on this changing social trend, local governments in agricultural regions are making many efforts to discover farm village features and amenities such as by establishing a landscape plan or implementing a landscape project. However, the social interest in rural landscape is lacking compared to urban landscape, thus, research on detailed matters such as landscape resources research method, planning policy, planning target, and planning method for landscape development is insufficient and actual case applications are extremely rare. This phenomenon indicates that difficulties still exist for local governments in agricultural regions to establish a systematic and consistent landscape plan. Thus, this research seeks to deduct an evaluation index that may represent the various characteristics and qualities of each space by categorizing the main fields forming agricultural landscape to provide a basis for systematic landscape planning and management in agricultural regions. To deduct an evaluation index reflecting the landscape characteristic of a region, Yesan-gun of Chungcheongnamdo was selected as the subject area, and a survey was conducted three times on specialists selected for having high understanding of the landscape characteristics of the subject area. Through this study, 14 detailed space types and evaluation indexes were deducted from the physical (objective) evaluation field, and 16 were deducted from the non-physical (subjective) evaluation field. The criticality between space type and evaluation index was assessed as well. The research conclusions deducted from the surveys and criticality assessment are as below. First, the forest and water area in the objective and subjective evaluation field were categorized as main space types forming natural landscape and appeared as the most critical space type in both the objective and subjective landscape field as a result of the criticality assessment. This result reflects agricultural regional characteristics based on natural environment and shows that forest and water area is the largest axis forming the landscape of the subject area, which indicates that it is the acknowledged as the most important factor of all. Second, the downtown area and production and distribution sites were selected as main space types in both objective and subjective landscape fields. This shows that the downtown area and industrial distribution facilities such as agricultural industrial complexes occupy a certain part of the region as a physical and subjective field affecting the formation of agricultural landscape even though the subject area is a typical agricultural region. Moreover, the downtown streets exhibited higher criticality in the criticality assessment compared to the objective landscape field, which shows that the forms, colors, and street buildings in the downtown area are main factors affecting the downtown landscape in agricultural regions. Third, although farmland occupies a large area of farm villages, the criticality rate appeared to be low in both the objective and subjective landscape fields compared to nature villages, confirming high acknowledgement of the impact on landscape by the village environment rather than farmland which occupies greater space. Fourth, farmland was largely categorized into rice paddies, orchards, fields (protected cultivation) and fields (outdoor cultivation). The area width of the subcategories of farmlands were not in proportion to the criticality rate, which shows that evaluation is made based on the condition of the location, form, and visual frequency. The evaluation index deducted through this research is expected to allow a rational and consistent evaluation for landscape in pertaining regions. Moreover, the result of criticality per each spacial factor may be used as a reference to determine priorities in regions and space types to plan and manage landscape. The results of this research are also expected to be applied to agricultural regions having geographical and spacial similarities with the subject area.; Recently, the population returning to farm villages or the countryside is increasing based on the preference for rural life and new developmental potential of agriculture. Based on this changing social trend, local governments in agricultural regions are making many efforts to discover farm village features and amenities such as by establishing a landscape plan or implementing a landscape project. However, the social interest in rural landscape is lacking compared to urban landscape, thus, research on detailed matters such as landscape resources research method, planning policy, planning target, and planning method for landscape development is insufficient and actual case applications are extremely rare. This phenomenon indicates that difficulties still exist for local governments in agricultural regions to establish a systematic and consistent landscape plan. Thus, this research seeks to deduct an evaluation index that may represent the various characteristics and qualities of each space by categorizing the main fields forming agricultural landscape to provide a basis for systematic landscape planning and management in agricultural regions. To deduct an evaluation index reflecting the landscape characteristic of a region, Yesan-gun of Chungcheongnamdo was selected as the subject area, and a survey was conducted three times on specialists selected for having high understanding of the landscape characteristics of the subject area. Through this study, 14 detailed space types and evaluation indexes were deducted from the physical (objective) evaluation field, and 16 were deducted from the non-physical (subjective) evaluation field. The criticality between space type and evaluation index was assessed as well. The research conclusions deducted from the surveys and criticality assessment are as below. First, the forest and water area in the objective and subjective evaluation field were categorized as main space types forming natural landscape and appeared as the most critical space type in both the objective and subjective landscape field as a result of the criticality assessment. This result reflects agricultural regional characteristics based on natural environment and shows that forest and water area is the largest axis forming the landscape of the subject area, which indicates that it is the acknowledged as the most important factor of all. Second, the downtown area and production and distribution sites were selected as main space types in both objective and subjective landscape fields. This shows that the downtown area and industrial distribution facilities such as agricultural industrial complexes occupy a certain part of the region as a physical and subjective field affecting the formation of agricultural landscape even though the subject area is a typical agricultural region. Moreover, the downtown streets exhibited higher criticality in the criticality assessment compared to the objective landscape field, which shows that the forms, colors, and street buildings in the downtown area are main factors affecting the downtown landscape in agricultural regions. Third, although farmland occupies a large area of farm villages, the criticality rate appeared to be low in both the objective and subjective landscape fields compared to nature villages, confirming high acknowledgement of the impact on landscape by the village environment rather than farmland which occupies greater space. Fourth, farmland was largely categorized into rice paddies, orchards, fields (protected cultivation) and fields (outdoor cultivation). The area width of the subcategories of farmlands were not in proportion to the criticality rate, which shows that evaluation is made based on the condition of the location, form, and visual frequency. The evaluation index deducted through this research is expected to allow a rational and consistent evaluation for landscape in pertaining regions. Moreover, the result of criticality per each spacial factor may be used as a reference to determine priorities in regions and space types to plan and manage landscape. The results of this research are also expected to be applied to agricultural regions having geographical and spacial similarities with the subject area.