DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Difference of Place Identity Perception and Landscape Preference between Residents and Tourists in Ihwa-dong Mural Village

이화동 벽화마을 주민과 관광객간의 장소 정체성 인식 및 경관 선호 차이에 관한 연구

  • Kim, Yelim (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Son, Yong-Hoon (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 김예림 (서울대학교 협동과정조경학) ;
  • 손용훈 (서울대학교 환경대학원)
  • Received : 2016.07.26
  • Accepted : 2017.02.20
  • Published : 2017.02.28

Abstract

Murals in villages revitalize communities and spaces, and are economically efficient. Central and local governments are therefore actively undertaking Mural Village Projects but there are some issues and concerns about the projects for the provision of uniformed landscapes for the regions that are the result of a short-term completion of projects, and instead of cohesion, cause destruction of place identities. In addition, the problem of sustainable landscape management that is the result of low community involvement can be pointed out because the murals are products of government-led projects. The study covered the context of landscape and space change processes from a critical perspective, and focused on Ihwa-dong Mural Village, which is considered the first mural village in Korea and has begun to undergo drastic changes due to attention received from media. The purposes of this study are as follows. First, the study provides data about difference of place identity perception and landscape preference between residents and tourists in Ihwa-dong Mural Village. Second, this paper evaluates the current Mural Village Projects and finds alternative directions to improve the projects by using these data. This paper analyzed tourist hot spots in Ihwa-dong Mural Village by using SNS analysis, a field study and focus group interviews. The difference of place identity perception and landscape preference was examined among three groups: residents, new residents who are invited by Mural Village Projects, and tourists. This study showed that many tourists are focused on landscape areas that were not intentionally constructed projects. In addition, the locations of preferred landscapes and stores overlapped. Meanwhile, using qualitative data analysis, it was found that residents perceived the area as being an under-privileged location, while the murals, a non-daily landscape, largely affected place identity perception of new residents and tourists. For landscape preference, tourists preferred outdoor rest areas, while new residents and residents preferred less. Additionally, new residents and tourists preferred an area's night view while residents made no mention of this. Related to the direction of the projects, three groups showed their dependence on the government. This empirical study is significant from a participatory design perspective and in analyzing the issues for mural villages' landscapes, which are spreading across the nation and proceeding without criticism in urban regeneration. Implications for urban planners and suggestions for the future projects are given.

마을에서 벽화는 커뮤니티와 공간을 재생시키는 효과와 함께 경제적 효율성까지 겸하고 있다. 이 때문에 한국에서는 정부기관과 지자체를 중심으로 벽화조성사업을 활발히 진행하고 있고, 현재 벽화와 조형물 중심의 마을 프로젝트는 전국적으로 200곳에 이른다. 하지만 벽화마을 조성사업은 사업의 단기적 완결에 초점을 맞추어 획일화된 경관을 보급하고, 장소의 정체성을 오히려 파괴한다는 문제점이 제기되고 있다. 또한, 정부 주도 사업으로 조성된 벽화는 주민참여가 저조하여 지속가능한 경관관리가 잘 이루어지지 못하는 문제도 지적될 수 있을 것이다. 본 연구는 벽화마을의 효시로 일컫고, 각종 미디어에서 주목받으며 급격한 경관 및 공간의 변화를 겪고 있는 이화동 벽화마을을 중심으로 벽화마을의 경관 변화과정의 맥락을 비판적 관점에서 살펴보고자 하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 이화동 벽화마을의 경관 및 장소 정체성에 대한 주체 간의 인식 차이를 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 통해 장소의 정체성을 살리고, 경관 선호 차이를 고려한 장소 만들기에 필요한 기반을 마련하였다. 둘째, 이러한 데이터를 통해 벽화사업을 평가하고 발전방향을 모색하고자 하였다. 연구방법으로는 문헌조사를 통해 경관변화 과정의 맥락을 살펴보고, 이를 바탕으로 SNS로 재현되는 이화동의 경관자원을 분석하여 관광지로써의 현황 및 관광객들의 선호 경관을 파악하였다. 또한, 주민, 벽화사업으로 인한 새로 유입된 이주민, 관광객 각 이용집단 간 이화동 벽화마을의 장소 정체성 인식 및 경관선호의 차이를 심도 있게 알아보기 위해 현장조사 및 심층인터뷰를 진행하였다. 연구의 결과는 관광객들은 벽화 외에 의도적으로 조성하지 않은 풍경 또한 많이 주목하였는데, 선호 풍경과 선호 상점의 위치가 많은 부분 겹쳐 풍경감상이 가능한 장소의 인근 상점이 선호되고 있음을 파악하였다. 장소의 정체성에 대해 주민은 소외된 동네라는 인식이 강한 반면, 이주민과 관광객들은 비일상적 경관인 벽화를 장소의 정체성이라고 인식하였다. 경관 선호의 경우, 관광객은 휴식공간에 대한 선호가 높은 반면, 이주민과 주민은 휴식공간에 거의 주목하지 않았다. 또한, 이주민, 관광객은 특히 야간경관에 대한 선호를 보인 반면, 주민은 전혀 주목하지 않았다. 벽화사업의 방향과 관련해서는 주민과 이주민 모두 벽화조성 및 관리 등에 주체적 참여의식을 갖기보다는 정부에 의존적인 태도를 취하는 이들이 많았다. 본 연구는 전국적으로 확산되고, 도시재생, 참여디자인 등에 관해서 비판 없이 받아들여지고 있는 벽화마을 경관에 대한 문제점을 실증연구를 통해서 분석했다는 점에서 의의가 있을 것이다. 또한, 주민, 이주민, 관광객간의 장소 정체성 및 경관 선호의 차이를 분석하여 추후 벽화마을 사업에 시사점을 제공할 수 있으리라 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Appleton, J.(1996) The Experience of Landscape. Chichester: Wiley.
  2. Arnheim, R.(1969) Visual Thinking. Univ of California Press.
  3. Bollnow, O. F.(2011) Mensch und Raum. [Man and Space] (Ki-sook Lee, Trans) Seoul: Ecolibr(Original work published 1963).
  4. Cho, Jeong-yun and Hun Seo(2013) A study on development plan of creative tourism: Focused on Haenggung-dong Mural Village, Tourism & Leisure Study 25(6): 69-83.
  5. Choi, Moon Hee and Moon Yong Choi(2009) A device through research about mural art as culture-tourism resources. Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture 15(3): 437-446.
  6. Grant-Smith, D. and T. Matthews(2014) Cork as canvas: exploring intersections of citizenship and collective memory in the Shandon big wash up murals. Community Development Journal, bsu 030.
  7. Hwang, Ki-won(2011) Translation of Landscape : Knowledge of Its Beauty. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
  8. Im, Jong-up(2015) Art Village Academic Trip: Art, Blooming village. Paju: Sodong.
  9. Im, Seung-bin, Young-eun Kang, Nia Kwon, Daesu Kim, Daehyeon Kim, Yeong-min Kim, Yeong-jin Kim, Myeong-gwon Park, Jae-bong Baek, Jae-sang Byeon, Ji-hun Shin and Hui-jeong Yoon(2013) Jo, Kyung-Kwan: Watch Landscape, Make Landscape. Goyang: Treecity.
  10. Kim, Dong-hyun(2015) Analysis of Residents' Satisfaction in the Urban Regeneration using Village Art Project: Focused on Gamcheon Cultural Village, Hwasun Sung-an Village and Sinse-dong Mural Village, Master's Thesis, Yonsei University. Korea.
  11. Kim, Han-Bae(1998) Finding our City's Face : Study about Landscape Change and Identity of Korean Cities. Seoul: TaerimMoonhwasa.
  12. Korea Arts Management Service(2007) 2006 Evaluation Report of Public art Project for Improvement of Living Environment of Disadvantaged Area.
  13. Lee, Gyu-mok(2002) The Modern Korean Townscape. Seoul: Yiulhwadang.
  14. Lee, Moo-yong(2005) Cultural Politics of Space. Seoul: Nonhyng.
  15. Lynch, K.(1960) The Image of the City (Vol. 11). MIT Press.
  16. Maruta, H.(2011) Theory of Location in the Information Society. (Translated by Park, Haw-ri and Yoon, Sang-hyun) Seoul: Simsan. (Original work published 2008)
  17. Miles, M.(1997) Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. Psychology Press.
  18. Min, Hyeon-seok(2012) Creation of Ageing-Friendly Community in Seoul: Focused on Ihwa-dong Jongro-gu Seoul. Seoul Development Institute.
  19. Mun, Hui-suk(2010) The study of environmentmural painting as public design:Focused on Pocheon city. Journal of Formation and Media. 13(1): 53-65.
  20. Nakamura, Y.(2008) 風景學入門[Landscape Design]. (Kim, Jae-ho, Trans) Seoul: Munjung(Original work published 1982).
  21. Oh, Jeongjoon(2011) Implications of photograph in tourist gaze. The Association of Korean Photo-Geographers Journal 21(1): 25-34.
  22. Oh, Jeongjoon(2015) Tourist photography as representation and performance:Focused on Rubber Duck project Seoul, The Korean Geographic Society Journal 50(2): 217-237.
  23. Oh, Se-chul(2011) Dreamvillage -Centering onmural painting village Dae-dong, Daejeon. Journal of The Society of Korean Photography 24: 195-206.
  24. Park, Mun-gyu.(2013) Study on improvement of region's community image by public art project: Daejeon Daedong village and France Lyon mural village case study. Global Culture Contents, 13: 43-61.
  25. Relph, E.(2005) Place and Placelessness(Kim, Duk-hyun, Kim, Hyun- Joo, & Sim, Seung-hee, Trans). Seoul: Nonhyung(Original work published 1976).
  26. Seong, Yeong-a and Min-ju Byeon(2013) The study of identity implementation for conservation and succession of mural village. Korean Science Art Forum. 14: 241-251. https://doi.org/10.17548/ksaf.2013.12.14.241
  27. Tuan, Y. F.(2007) Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Koo, Dong-heo and Sim, Seung-hee, Trans). Seoul: Daeyoon(Original work published 1977).
  28. Waclawek, A.(2015) Graffiti and Street Art. (Lee, Jung-yeon, Trans) Seoul: Sigongart(Original work published 2011).
  29. Warnke, M.(1997) Politische Landschaft: Zur Kunstgeschichte der Natur. [Political landscape: the art history of nature] (No, Sung-doo, Trans) Seoul: Ilbit(Original work published 1992).
  30. Ko, Jun-hyeok(2016) Why residents damage the murals? mural village benefits only landlords, E-daily, [online]16 May.
  31. Han, Jemma(2016) [Han Jemma's art cart bar]The way of escaping from mural pollution. Chosun Biz, [online]14 April.
  32. Han, Yoon-jung(2016) [House is human](5) Themoon had risen in shantytown where ironmonger have touched. Gyeong-hyang News, [online]12 February.
  33. Daum map homepage http://map.daum.net
  34. Doopedia homepage www.doopedia.co.kr
  35. Instagram homepage www.instagram.com

Cited by

  1. The Role of Tourist Behaviour in The Determination of Tourist Attractions vol.6, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.6.4_62