도·농 복합도시의 고령 복지 프로그램 우선순위 분석 : 평택시 경로당을 중심으로

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 초고령사회에 진입한 우리나라에서 고령층의 삶의 질 향상을
위해 필요한 경로당 프로그램의 개선 방향과 우선순위를 체계적으로 도출
하고자 수행되었다. 특히 도·농 복합도시인 평택시를 대상으로, 경로당이
단순한 여가 공간을 넘어 지역사회 노인의 삶을 지탱하는 복합 커뮤니티
로 기능하기 위한 실질적 개선방안을 제시하는 데 목적이 있다.
세계보건기구(WHO)는 고령화를 ‘조용히 진행되는 사회혁명’으로 정의하
며 사회·경제적 변화를 경고한 바 있다. 우리나라는 2024년 12월 노인인구
비율이 20%를 초과하여 초고령사회에 진입하였으나, 경로당은 프로그램
다양성, 전문성, 운영체계 측면에서 여전히 미흡한 실정이다.
전국적으로 약 6만 8천 개소의 경로당이 운영되고 있지만, 80세 이상 노
인의 이용률은 28.1%에 그친다.
이는 경로당 프로그램이 세대(世代) 특성과 변화된 욕구를 충분히 반영하
지 못하고 반복적인 여가 활동 중심으로 운영되고 있기 때문이다.
이번 연구는 이러한 한계를 인식하고 경로당 프로그램의 체계적 재구조
화를 위해 AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) 기법을 적용하였다. 여가·취
미, 복지지원, 교육, 건강관리, 사회참여 등 5개 대분류와 20개 소분류를
구성하여 평택시 노인회 관계자, 경로당 회장, 노인대학 학장 등 70명을
대상으로 설문을 시행하였고, 이 중 64부를 분석에 활용하였다.
사전 단계에서는 프로그램 항목의 타당성 확보를 위해 FGI(Focus Group
Interview)를 세 차례 수행하였다.
분석 결과, 대분류에서는 여가·취미(34.1%), 교육(31.4%), 복지지원
(21.1%), 사회참여(8.7%), 건강관리(4.7%) 순으로 중요도가 나타났다. 소분
류에서는 인지훈련, 기초 문해교육, 노래 교실이 상위 3개 항목으로 도출
iv
되었다. 이는 고령층이 단순한 경제적 지원보다 인지 기능 유지, 사회적
교류 강화, 기본 교육 접근성을 삶의 질과 직결된 핵심 요소로 인식한다는
점을 시사한다.
정책적 시사점으로는 첫째, 경로당 운영의 전문화와 공공성 재정립, 둘째,
프로그램 운영비 확충을 포함한 지속 가능한 예산체계 구축, 셋째, 도·농
지역 간 프로그램 접근성 격차를 완화하기 위한 맞춤형 복지전략 마련이
요구된다.
결론적으로 경로당은 친목 중심의 공간을 넘어 지역사회 고령층의 삶의
질을 종합적으로 지원하는 복합 커뮤니티로 전환되어야 하며, 본 연구의
프로그램 우선순위 분석은 초고령사회에서 경로당 운영 패러다임 전환을
위한 실증적 근거를 제공하는 데 그 목적이 있다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 ··················································································································· 1
• 1. 연구의 배경 ······················································································· 1
• 2. 연구의 목적 및 방법 ······································································· 3
• 3. 연구의 흐름······························································································· 5
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 및 선행연구 검토 ····················································· 7
• 1. 고령화 사회와 경로당의 사회적 기능 ········································· 7
• 2. 평택시의 지역적 특성과 노인복지 현황 ··································· 20
• 3. 경로당 운영 프로그램 분석 ···························································· 36
• 4. 노인 삶의 질 ················································································· 46
• 5. 선행연구 검토 ················································································· 59
• Ⅲ. 연구의 설계 ························································································ 65
• 1. AHP 개요 ························································································ 65
• 2. 연구 문제 ······················································································· 70
• 3. 분석 범위 ························································································· 71
• Ⅳ. 실증 분석 ··································································································· 76
• 1. 표본의 특성 ····················································································· 76
• 2. AHP 분석 결과 ··················································································81
• 1) 계층분석 결과 ·············································································81
• 2) 경로당 프로그램 소분류 분석 결과············································· 83
• 3) 종합 분석 결과 ·········································································91
• vi
• Ⅴ. 결론 ··································································································· 96
• 1. 연구 결과 요약 ··············································································· 96
• 2. 시사점······························································································· 99
• 3. 연구의 한계 및 향후 과제 ··························································· 99
• 참고문헌 ··································································································101
• ABSTRACT ···························································································106
• 부록
• 설문지 ·····································································································108