한국과 영국의 도시재생사업 특성에 대한 비교분석: 청주시와 셰필드시 사례의 사업요소와 참여주체를 중심으로 = A Comparativ Study on Charateristic of Urban Regeneration Programs between Korea and England Cases,-Focused on Elements of Urban Regeneration Program and Stake holders-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to compare types, individual project factors and participants of urban regeneration project characteristics between successful overseas long-term urban regeneration projects(urban regeneration activities by Sheffield One that works for city regeneration among U.K Sheffield city regeneration activities) and Korean on-going urban regeneration projects in Cheong-ju(urban regeneration activities in Sajik 2-dong, Jungang-dong of Cheong-ju). In addition, the purpose of this study is to analyze future directions of Korean urban regeneration projects and current problems.
Two analysis factors selected as urban regeneration project(contents of urban regeneration projects, participants) were drawn by using a study on urban regeneration projects of existing cities and a study on participants in urban regeneration governance. Through the index drawn by the evaluation of importance(2nd expert survey, AHP analysis using Expert Choice) based on urban regeneration project types, detailed project contents, urban regeneration project participant types, validation of detailed types(1st expert survey, 5-point Likert scale), and validated analysis factors, this study compared and analyzed urban regeneration project activities in Korean and England. Also, a comparative analysis of both countries’ cases based on urban regeneration project finances and governance change types was conducted.
The priorities assessment of urban regeneration project types drawn by expert survey was seen in the order of economy/industry, material/environment/policy and social welfare/culture types, and the priorities assessment of individual projects in the types was seen in the order of market revitalization program development, residential participation activation, construction of urban infrastructure and reconstruction of old buildings.
Regarding differences of project contents and types between both countries, U.K case showed that 3~5 project types were individual projects and Korean case showed that more than six projects in a target region or an division were complex. Most types of U.K were material/environment/policy type projects while Korea showed relatively even distribution. As the result of comparison, due to differences such as the size, scope and concept of project, important types, kinds of individual projects and project capacity were different in the two countries. As the result of analysis of finance creation system as detailed factors of urban regeneration projects, U.K showed phased systematic urban regeneration finance system based on public sector while Korea still keeps financing of existing reconstruction and development projects.
With respect to the comparison of participations of urban regeneration projects, U.K case showed main agents of administrative divisions participate variously by different units as national regeneration policies but are somewhat different from important participants drawn by the expert survey. Korea case showed not participant network that is built as a safe type but a minority of subjects related to regeneration projects are diversified because activities are put into projects. The results from the expert survey also showed a relatively similar type compared to U.K case. In terms of the case comparison of the two countries based on governance system, Sheffield One urban regeneration activities were based on stable urban regeneration governance system while Korean Cheon-ju case showed urban regeneration projects by stages and that the transition has changed to the governance type.
The implications about urban regeneration development plans drawn by the study process and comparative analysis results are as follows.

First, policies of urban regeneration and implementation project process should be viewed from a long-term perspective.

Second, program development to secure urban competitiveness should be harmonized with reconstruction projects.

Third, it needs to expand professional agencies for urban regeneration and build stable governance system about urban regeneration project participants.

Fourth, various support systems and financing systems for urban regeneration projects should be established.

Lastly, this study is partially different from existing studies because it conducted a comparative analysis by quantitatively drawing comparative factors, compared to existing case comparative studies on urban regeneration projects. However, some problems were found while this study was underway as there is a limit of generalization due to the use of limited index based on urban regeneration characteristics among numerous comparative indexes and the survey target is limited to domestic experts, and the evaluation model of important to analyze is limited to importance analysis only through simple comparison both two countries. Therefore, the follow-up study should have a method of mutual linkage model development through more reliable objective work about individual factors of urban regeneration characteristics.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론 1
• 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 1
• 2. 연구의 범위와 방법 2
• Ⅱ. 이론적 고찰 5
• 1. 도시재생의 일반적 특성 5
• (1) 도시재생의 개념 5
• (2) 도시재생의 범위 및 목표 7
• (3) 도시재생의 특성 10
• 2. 도시재생의 유형 및 재원 12
• (1) 도시재생사업의 유형 12
• (2) 도시재생사업의 재원 15
• 3. 도시재생의 참여주체 17
• (1) 거버넌스 활동 내 참여주체 19
• (2) 참여주체 별 역할 21
• 4. 선행연구 검토 27
• Ⅲ. 사례 검토 30
• 1. 개요 30
• 2. 영국 셰필드 도시재생 사례 31
• (1) 추진배경 31
• (2) 셰필드시 도시재생사업 전개과정 및 추진기구 33
• (3) 셰필드원 주관 셰필드시 중심시가지 재생 사례 37
• 3. 청주시 도시재생 사례 48
• (1) 사직 2동 사례 48
• (2) 중앙동 사례 52
• Ⅳ. 분석의 틀 설정 57
• 1. 개요 57
• 2. 분석요소 추출 57
• 3. 설문 구성 및 방법 60
• (1) 설문 구성 60
• (2) 설문대상 및 방법 62
• 4. 분석방법 62
• Ⅴ. 사례 비교분석종합 65
• 1. 도시재생 시행사업의 중요도 측정 65
• (1) 도시재생 주요사업 추출 65
• (2) 도시재생사업 중요도 분석 66
• 2. 도시재생사업 참여주체의 중요도 측정 72
• (1) 도시재생사업 주요 참여주체 추출 72
• (2) 도시재생사업의 참여주체 중요도 분석 73
• 3. 도시재생사업 특성에 따른 한국과 영국 사례 비교 81
• (1) 도시재생사업 요소 분석 81
• (2) 도시재생사업 참여주체 분석 89
• 4. 분석결과 종합 95
• Ⅵ. 결론 98
• <참고문헌> 102
• <부 록> 107