<C0CCBFD5B0C7BFDC5FC6D0C5B0C1F6C7FCB5B5BDC3C0E7BBFDC1A4C3A55FC1A6C3E2BABB2E687770>
Urban Regeneration Policy of Packaged Style
for Urban and Regional Resilience

Urban Regeneration Policy of Packaged Style for Urban and Regional Resilience
| 17-14
5
6
()
Texas A&M ()





(Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements)
··

1978 . , ,

.

.














•4
•4 ·
•OECD
•
•
•
•
• ·
•
•·
•
•
•
•
• ()
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ()
• ()
•
•
•
•(Paris Agreement)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISBN 979-11-5898-256-0
/
17-14
Urban Regeneration Policy of Packaged Style for Urban and Regional Resilience
()
()
,
,


:




,

2013 6 2017 13
33 46 30

,
,
· i
SUMMARY
ii
2.






, ,


, , ,

( ) , ,
, ,


( )





iv




(rhetoric)
( )
,

( )


( ) ,

, ,


· v
4.



5.




,

( )


( )

vi
2 |






( )







( )
, ,
,

2
· ix
17-14
4
5
( 1 1)
,
, , , ,


, ,




,
,


·,


1 5


TF


,



2.
1)
46 30

(2017 7 )


1-2 |
(2017)


1 7

,

,


1

-




, ,
(2015),

,
,

, , ,

,

- ,
(2010), (2015)
1 9
, ,
(2016)
-
() (regional (economic) resilience)
(2015),
(2016), (2014)
-
(2012) 2013
(
, 2016; , 2017)
















, ,



1.‘ ’ | 15
2. | 20
(making cities resilient)

(Holling, 1973; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015)
UN-ISDR, UN-HABITAT


, ,


( , 2013; , 2016)


10
(Adger, 2000)
1) (atomization)
16
(Simmie
and Martin, 2010)

10

(Adger, 2000; Campanella, 2006)
()
, , ,

(Hassink, 2010; MacKinnon and Derickson, 2012;
Martin and Sunley, 2014; Mehmood, 2016)



: :
“
”
“ ” ( 1 )
1)
2)

-
2)




-

(Güzey, 2016)


‘’ ‘’
(. , )
(. , ) (White and
O’Hare, 2014)

18

2-1 | 4



- --


2 19

2-2 |



(Martin and Sunley, 2015; Martin et al., 2016)
20
,
,
,
, ,
( , 2016, 25)


- [ 2-2]
, ,


, , ,
(. )
IMF

(policy package)
2 21
(policy mix)
:


6
(Leung, 2011)
2)
, ,


: H/W ( ), S/W ( )
: ( , , ), (,
)

, ,




:



( , 2010; , 2014)
... ,
1. | 27
2. | 30

,
()
,
- ,



- ,

1)

(, 2014: 370-371)
,
(, 2012)
( , , ) -

(, 2012)
“ ( 34 )”: , , , ,
“ ( 15 )” : , ,
“ ( 11 )” :

,
“”


,
, ,





30
2.
13, 17

22.6 ,
9.7, 6.0, 5.5,
1.1
-
17.5 8.3,
4.1, 4.0, 0.5
- 26.5 10.8,
7.5, 6.7, 1.6


, , ,

3 31
(13 )
38 11 10 14 3 15 5 6 3 1 22 9 3 8 2 8 6 2 - -
18 8 5 5 - 11 6 3 2 - 18 8 5 5 - 15 4 1 2 - 18 9 3 6 - 14 10 2 2 - 29 21 5 2 1 15 5 8 2 - 7 6 - 1 -
(17 )
33 5 15 10 3 24 6 1 14 3 41 16 4 20 1 34 11 14 7 2 29 14 11 - 4 21 10 2 7 2 32 10 11 10 1 22 18 3 1 - 19 8 11 - - 17 10 2 3 2 18 9 9 - - 28 11 7 10 - 32 18 2 11 1 12 4 8 - - 33 15 9 5 4 34 13 11 9 3 22 6 8 7 1
22.6 9.7 6.0 5.5 1.1
3-1 | ( )

, ,
,





, , ,
, ,
-
A B
( ),



-

10%
2 (4%) 53 (96%)
: 2 7
,


H/W S/W




H/W


34
H/W 3,856 3,672 6,914 S/W 274 366 7
855 1,150 1,731 H/W 20,080 19,569 25,811 S/W 3,488 4,028 1,564
3,808 11,989 2,259 32,362 40,774 38,286
:
(,
)
,

,



,




,
(rhetoric)



( )





-


3.
1)
,


-

( 3-1)




-
24 ,


) ] 86 .
( 2 4 )
4.“ ” ... ( ) ... , , , , , , , , , , .
. .

-

2016
(, 2017)

:


(, , 2016; , , 2015)
-





(, , 2016)

( )
[ ]
‘ ’
, , , , ,






(, 2016; , 2016)
-


( , 2015)

,


(, 2015)
40






1. 2. 3. 5. , , 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 24. 26. 27. ( ) 28. 29.
: , 2016. 2017 , , p. 75-81.
4 (
, , , )
1)
3 41

( ) : , 2017, , , p.14

-

‘, ’, ‘
’

-


42
( 7 )
( “ ” ) . ( )
( 9 )
· · · .
( " " ) .
. 1. 2. 3. , 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
( 7 )
3-9 |
44
’ ‘ ’, ‘
’

’
- , ( )









TF

, , ,

2( ):

3( ): TF

3 45
,



- ‘’
- ‘’ ‘/’


-

- 2013
2(6, 8) 1 3
, 2016



-




-
2015 ,
‘’



, , ,

3 47
:
‘’ ‘(/)’

, (/
) ,
(/)
-
()
48
3-6 | ‘ ’ ‘ ’ :
10
, ,

3
- , ,
,
4



3 49
- - 15 2 8 4
:

- ( )

)
,

- ( )
,


‘ TF’
‘ TF’
1. - 2. - : •
-

‘ ’
-
‘’






-

)




()

52
3-7 |
([ -1])
-
( 2008 ) (, 2015)
11


( )

‘’
-


-


-



-
2~4
‘’
- ‘’

-




2)
-


-


()
-



-

()
()
,


-
3 55

(, 2015)
-


-



-


- ‘’ ‘’
‘’ ‘//’ ,


’ ‘ ’

56



,


, ,
1
‘’









3 57



1

, ,

(, , , )
MOU




, ,


’
, ,

,
MOU



, , ,
, ,


(
)


( ) , ( ) - ,
3-13 |
60
4.

(.

,
)
(
, , , )


‘16


- 4 3 ‘16 3

, ,




,








,




1996 ‘’(: ’98 6
30)
-

‘ ’
, ( , , 1996.1~1998.7)

, 2001

(3)
2)
, 22 (175, ’17.6 )


3) , , , , , , ,
, ,

, *
* :
()

‘ ’ (‘09. 9 )
·


68
’ ‘ ’, ‘
’
,
,
, , ‘
’

- () ()
( )
,



(), () ,


, , , ,
( 4)
4 69
,

(2)
( 8)

,

- ( 121), ()
( 2), ( 3),
( 4)
9 (
·, , ·)

- 3 (’17) 12 8
- 12 : , , ,
, , , , , ,
, · ,
4-1 |

- (1) ,
( 28 1 1)
- (2) ( 28
1 2)

( ’00.5 )
(’02), (’11) ,
(’02), (’98
)
-


4 73
, , ,
, ,

( )
····

((3) )
, , , (
4 75
* : , ,
,
’
4 77

‘ (81)’

4-4 | ( )

(4)
( ) 7)
,

-

7) 46 6 6
80

- ( 9 )
,

- 9

5,120 ( )
10%
4-5 | ( , 2011~2012)
·

- “ ()”, “
() (
‘ ’, ’10.3.31.)

,


-
8)
-


8) . ( , 2015, p. 62)
(3)
2010 ,
,
4 83


()
-

4-6 | ( )
- 1-:
( 2) ·
, , , , , ,
·
, , ,
,
- ,
(1)
· ,
()



-
4 87
4-7 |
: , 2012, : , .
( ) ,
( ) ,
( ) ( ) ( , )
: , 2012, : , .
4-8 |
(2)
, , NPO

88
,
4-8 |
: , 2012, : , .
( ) (passage)
( ) NPO · ·
( ) ( ) ·
: , 2012, : , .
4-9 |
, , ,
,
,


4-9 |
: , 2012, : , .
( )
( ) 100 ( ) 100
( ) () : , 2012, : ,
.
,

4-10 |
: , 2012, : , .
( ) ( ) ,
( ) , ( ) ,
( ) , ( ) , ,
: , 2012, : , .
4-11 |

(, ) NPO,

4-11 | ·
: , 2012, : , .
( ) , , ( ),
( ) ( ) ,
( ) () , , ,
( ) NPO , , : , 2012, : ,
.
9






·



4 93
,




,

,


- ‘’

2)


(, , )


98
3) -





- 2015 24.6% 1)


-

(, 2015)





,



- , ,




5 99


- ( )




-






-

,


,

, ,
5 101


( , 2016)

,

,
MOU

- ,

, ( , 2016)
-



(, 2017, 56)
- –
–
-
, ,



102
‘’


( -3 )
-
(, 2016, 109-129)
5 103




-


-


)

, ,


104
(3)

- ‘’ ‘/’ ‘’
‘’







-


-



-

5 105

(,
2015; , 2016)




- ‘’
‘’


‘ ’
(,
)







( , 2017)
-



( , 2017)




( , 2015; , , 2016; , 2016;
, , 2017)




5 107


2)



-

-







-





108


-






- , ,





-

-

, 1.
, 2.
, 3.
5-3 |




1. | 113
2. | 117





,



114












6 115
,
,










,


116














6 117



, ,
,

2.
, , , 2013, , .
, 2017, : ,
, 2017. 3. 30.
, 2016, , “ ” (2016.
10. 4.).
, 2017, , .
, 2014, 2015 , .
, 2016, 2017 , .
, , , , 2010, ,
, 11(4), 77-96.
, , 2017, : ,
.
, , , 2016, (resilience) ,
.
, , , 2016, , SH .
, , , , , , , , , , 2015,
, .
, 2017, 2017 : , .
(), 1999, - , 1999
.
(), 2011, - , .
, , 2016, , .
, 2015, : - ,
, 28(3), 75-104.
, 9-25.
, , , , , 2014,
, .
, 2015, , .
, , , , , , , , , , 2016,
, .
, , 2015, , .
() , 2015,
, , , 10(3).
, 2013, , , 48(6),
367-385.
, 2016,
(I), .
, 2017, (II),
.
, , 2012, ,
, 24(4), 61-76.
, , , , , 2012,
, .
, , , , , , 2015,
, .
, , , , , , , , 2017,
(II), .
121
, , , , , , 2016, ,
.
, , , , 2016,
: , , 29(2), 25-46.
, , 2016, , ,
29(1), 35-61.
, , , 2016, :
() , , 28(2), 19-37.
, 2012, , , 52, 4-13.
, 2015, , 2015 ,
1053-1069.
, 2010, [] , 7.
, , , , , 2014,
, .
, 2002.3.12.
, , , , , , , 2016,
I: , .
, , , , , 2016, ,
.
, 2014, 25: 82, .
Adger, W. N., 2000, Social and ecological resilience: are they related?, Progress in Human
Geography, 24(3), 347-364.
122
Campanella, T. J., 2006, Urban Resilience and the Recovery of New Orleans, Journal of the
American Planning Association, 72(2), 141-146.
Christopherson, S., Michie, J. and Tyler, P., 2010, Regional resilience: theoretical and empirical
perspectives, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 3-10.
Güzey, Ö, 2016, The last round in restructuring the city: Urban regeneration becomes a state policy
of disaster prevention in Turkey, Cities, 50, 40-53.
Hassink, R., 2010, Regional resilience: a promising concept to explain differences in regional
economic adaptability?, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 45-58.
Leung, E., Weil D., Raviglione, M., and Nakatani, H., 2011, The WHO policy package to combat
antimicrobial resistance, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89, 390-392.
(http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/11-088435/en/, : 2017. 6. 28.)
MacKinnon, D. and Derickson, K. D., 2012, From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of
resilience policy and activism, Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), 253-270.
Martin, R. and Sunley, P., 2015, On the notion of regional economic resilience: conceptualization
and explanation, Journal of Economic Geography, 15, 1-42.
Martin, R., Sunley, P., Gardiner, B. and Tyler, P., 2016, How Regional React to Recessions:
Resilience and the Role of Economic Structure, Regional Studies, 50(4), 561-585.
Mehmood, A., 2016, Of resilient places: planning for urban resilience, European Planning Studies,
24(2), 407-419.
Simmie, J. and Martin, R., 2010, The economic resilience of regions: towards an evolutionary
approach, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 27-43.
Weichselgartner, J. and Kelman, I., 2015, Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities
of a descriptive concept, Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 249-267.
White, I. and O’Hare, P., 2014, From rhetoric to reality: which resilience, why resilience, and
whose resilience in spatial planning?, Environment and Planning C, 32, 934-950.
,
123
,
, ( http://www.cao.go.jp/about/about.html), : 2017. 6. 3.
,
(http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/cs_minaoshi/, : 2017. 6. 4.)
, (http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/komon/dai18/si3.html) :
2017. 6. 5.
,
,
,
(http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/tiiki/kanrenkakugi.html, : 2017. 6. 11.)
124
Urban Regeneration Policy of Packaged Style for Urban and Regional Resilience
Lee Wangeun, Kwon Kyusang, Park Soyoung, Lee Jungchan, Min Beomsik, Jin Younghyo
Keywords: Urban Regeneration, Policy Package, Resilience, Organizational Solution
Urban regeneration projects are required to integrate various unit projects and
promote them in a place-centered manner, but the organic linkage between individual
projects is insufficient. The purpose of this study is to analyze the reasons why the
package approach is not implemented in the current urban regeneration project and
to propose a policy plan to revitalize the package urban regeneration policy. This study
analyzed the process and characteristics of current urban regeneration policies and
projects, focusing on the actual conditions of urban regeneration related organization
and suggested policies to promote the packaged urban regeneration policy for urban
and regional resilience. Urban regeneration project focuses on the economic, social,
and cultural renewal in a place or city that needs to be regenerated. It should take into
consideration the welfare policies, cultural policies, economic policies, and spatial
policies that provide space for each policy. In this study, we focused on linking and
coordinating public entities to promote package policy, and drawing up institutional
improvement plan to support it.
The followings are the legal, planning, and budgetary and organizational aspects of
why the package approach is not implemented in urban regeneration projects. First,
SUMMARY 125
the process of planning according to the law is complicated and there is no
coordination procedure that can be solved in case of conflict of interests. In addition,
there is a lack of incentive for linking policies and projects, such as restrictions on city
renewal account changes. In terms of planning and budget, there is an obstacle to
integrated operation, but if there is organizational capability and capacity to link
individual policies and projects, it is possible to carry out sufficient level of integrated
promotion even in the current state. In fact, the important part is the limitation of the
performance evaluation system which does not provide the incentive to the ministry
cooperation, and the difficulty of the adjustment of the interests due to the
partitioning administration. On the municipal side, it lacked the power and incentive
to link the policies of each ministry to the place-centered due to the low status of the
dedicated organization, the lack of recognition of the administrative council, and the
difficulty of securing independence due to the status of the Urban Regeneration
Support Center.
Based on the results of the analysis, the following policy measures were suggested
in this study. In order to promote packaged urban regeneration policies, the roles
between central and local governments should be clearly distinguished. The central
government should concentrate on the role of the interest coordinator in coordinating
the conflicts among the central ministries, leaving a considerable number of
individual projects to local governments who are well aware of the local situation. To
this end, the role of the Urban Regeneration Special Committee needs to be
strengthened. In order to promote the collaboration of the central government, it is
desirable to improve the performance evaluation system to meet the collaboration of
the ministry and to carry out the pilot project linking individual policy of the ministry.
At the municipal level, policies and projects should be implemented to promote the
administration of administrative councils and strengthen the role and capacity of the
Urban Regeneration Support Center.
126
APPENDIX
1 14.07.29 2 - 3 · - 4 - 5 15.07.01 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - -
10 - - 11 · - - - 12 - - 13 13.10.08 14 - - 15 - - 16 14.02.27 17 - - 18 - - 19 - - 20 · - - 21 · - - 22 - - - 23 - - 24 - - - 25 - - 26 - 27 ( ) 14.02 - 28 ( ) 13.12 -
-1 |
127
29 15.03.18 (LH) 30 15.02.25 31 - - 32 - 11.04.25 33 15.04.24 34 - - - 35 14.05 36 - 37 15.04.27 - 38 15.03 39 - - 40 15.04.21 41 - - 42 - 43 - - 44 15.08.03 45 - - 46 - -
: , 2017, (II), , p.5-6.
128

4 1
( 1946) 1222 )
.
2.
3. ( ) (
11 )
4. ( 1 )

5. ( )

6. ( 21 ) ,


8. ( 1 )

9. () 21 )
2 )
10. ( 21 . 335 )

11. ( 21 . 336 )

12.
,

13.
14. ,
15. 2
16. (
25 . 373 2614
)
17. ( [] )

18. , , (38 [] )

19. ,

20. ( 21 . )

-2 | ( 4 )
129
21.
22.
23.

24. ( . )
25.
26. .
27.
28. 2

29.
2 , 2 , .
1. .
2. (
)
22 91 .
3. 41

32 41
33 51 , 131 (
541 ,
), 141
151
.
34 () 71 .
35 81 , 12 1
, 281
, 311
, 351 ,
561

.
36 , 81 ,
1643 , 281

.
4~62
: , 2014, 25: 82
17-14
5 044-960-0114 044-211-4760
ISBN 979-11-5898-256-0 B171500
.
.

Urban Regeneration Policy of Packaged Style
for Urban and Regional Resilience

Urban Regeneration Policy of Packaged Style for Urban and Regional Resilience
| 17-14
5
6
()
Texas A&M ()





(Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements)
··

1978 . , ,

.

.














•4
•4 ·
•OECD
•
•
•
•
• ·
•
•·
•
•
•
•
• ()
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ()
• ()
•
•
•
•(Paris Agreement)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISBN 979-11-5898-256-0