| 요약1 |
현재 건설교통부의 지침에 따라 관련 자치단체 나름대로 장기미집행 도시계획시설에 대해 존치와 폐지의 재검토 기준을 마련하기 위해 노력하고 있으나, 건교부의 지침의 내용이 일반적이고 다양한 기준 제시가 가능한 정성적 평가기준 위주로 실제 적용과 해석이 다를 수 있고, 명확한 결과를 제시하지 못하는 문제가 있으며, 모든 시설을 평가하기는 어렵기 때문에 일차적인 시설의 선별이 필요하다.
또한 장기미집행 도시계획시설에 대해 명확한 재검토 결과를 구체적으로 제시하고 적용해야 하는 관련 자치단체들의 경우는 적용이 쉽고, 설명이 용이하며, 판단의 근거가 명확한 정량적 평가기준을 선호하고 있으나 현재까지 이에 대한 연구는 전무한 실정이다.
이에 본 연구에서는 장기미집행 도시계획시설에 대한 재검토 기준 중 정량적 평가기준을 설정하고자 한다. |
| 요약2 |
The objective of this study is to institute the criteria, in particular quantitative criteria for the review of road facilities that has taken up the biggest portion of unexecuted urban planning facilities in long-term. This study started with reviewing the existing studies of related subjects and went on to setting up evaluation criteria and quantifying them and to breaking down of the types of facilities for reviewing and making Cluster Analysis. Finally, the study examined the quantitative criteria by applying them to Ik-san city that has been selected for case study. The quantitative criteria 9 items in total. The highest score of each criterion is 10 points and different points were given according to the level of a road. Lower points indicated that facilities have less justification to exist and higher points give justification for continued existence of facilities. Based on the comprehensive points, amalgamation of all the points from each criterion, the facilities are broke down into 4 categories: "existence", "subject to review for existence", "subject to review for elimination", and "elimination". The quantitative criteria applied to Ik-san city was compared with the criteria that Ik-san city has made through qualitative analysis. Ik-san city divided up the road facilities into 3 categories ("existence", "renovation", and "elimination") according to their criteria. Firstly, the quantitative analysis made clear distinction between the facilities for existence and elimination; 39 facilities can existence; 3 facilities are subject to review for existence, 160 facilities are subject to review for elimination and 93 facilities need to be closed. Secondly, the quantitative analysis of 39 facilities exhibited the contrasting results from the qualitative analysis by Ik-san city. The difference has resulted from the absence of influence from municipality government in the quantitative criteria. Thirdly, this research clearly defined quantitative criteria, making it possible to sort out urban planning facilities that have been overdue in the 1st round. However, this thesis has shortfalls in need of improvement; the criteria have not been applied to other cities; the evaluation criteria have not been examined; criterion doesn"t reflect the relative importance without graduated points. |