http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이수장 ( Soo Jang Lee ) 한국환경정책학회 2006 環境政策 Vol.14 No.1
Local opposition and protest constitute single greatest hurdle to the siting of locally unwanted land uses(LULUs) not only throughout Korea but throughout the industrialized world. It can be attributed mainly to the NIMBYism, equity problem, and lack of participation. These problems are arisen from rational planning process which emphasizes instrumental rationalty. But planning is a value-laden political activity, in which sustantive rationality is central. To achieve this goals, we need a sound planning process for siting LULUs, which should improve the ability of citizens to influence the decisions that affects them. By a sound planning process, we mean one that is open to citizen input and contains accurate and complete information. In other word, the public is also part of the goal setting process, and as the information and analyses developed by the planners is evaluated by the public, strategies for solutions can be developed through consensus-building. This method is called as a co-operative siting process, and must be structured in order to arrive at publicly acceptable decisions. The model is tentative theory, and will be developed by conjectures and refutations.
기피시설입지선정에 있어 합의형성방안 - 방사성폐기물처분장에 주목하면서 -
이수장(Soo Jang Lee) 한국지방자치학회 2001 韓國地方自治學會報 Vol.13 No.3
Facility siting conflicts have become a serious public policy problem. Nowhere is this more evident than for radioactive waste management facilities. While the need for such facilities is generally accepted, specific siting proposals are usually met with strong local opposition. The conventional siting process, which is technocratic and top-down in orientation, is inherently confrontational in nature and creates an `us-them` adversarial situation, namely siting conflicts. But understanding locational decisions as the products of interactions and conflicts of policy-makers and affected citizens, the most crucial aspect in siting facilities is to resolve the conflicts among stake-holders. To resolve these conflicts we need a sound planning process which should meet three principles: trust, equity, and community participation. In other word the public is the most important part of the facility siting process, and as the information and analyses developed by the planners is evaluated by the public, strategies for solutions can be developed through consensus-building.
이수장(Lee Soo-Jang) 한국도시행정학회 2010 도시 행정 학보 Vol.23 No.4
Taken together, the works of J.Habermas and M.Foucault highlight an essential tension in modernity. This is tension between the normative and the real, between what should be done and what is actually done. Understanding this tension is crutial to understanding modern planning, what it is and what it could be. It has been argued that an effective way of making democracy stronger is to strengthen civil society. This article contains comparative analysis of the central ideas of Habermas and Foucault as they pertain to the question of democracy and civil society. More specifically, the discourse ethics of Habermas is contrasted with the power analytics of Foucault evaluating their usefulness for those interested in understanding, and bringing about, democratic planning.
이수장 ( Soo Jang Lee ) 한국환경정책평가연구원 2010 환경정책연구 Vol.9 No.4
오늘날 국가 또는 사회 문제 가운데서 가장 해결하기 어려운 것이 행정당국, 사업시행자, 해당 지역주민 그리고 시민단체 간의 환경분쟁이다. 이러한 분쟁은 환경파괴, 비용과 편익의 불공평성 등으로 인하여 입지과정에서 관련 지역공동체의 강력한 저항이나 반대, 즉 님비(NIMBYism)를 유발한다. 지역기피시설(locally unwanted land uses, LULUs)의 입지나 개발에 대한 반대는 지역공동체의 이기적·편협적인 님비에 기인하는 것이 아니라 삶의 장소와 생태계를 보호하려는 지역주민의 합리적이며 정당한 요구의 표현이다. 따라서 이러한 입지갈등을 해결하기 위해서는 종래와 같은 결정-발표-옹호(decide-announce-defend, DAD)로 표현되는 그들과 우리라는 적대적인 관계가 아닌, 이해당사자들의 상호작용, 즉 협상에 의한 합의형성(consensus-building)을 하려는 상황이 이루어져야 할 것이다. 이러한 협상은 보다 바람직하며, 실행가능성이 높은 자발적인 과정으로 대안적 분쟁해결(alternative dispute resolution)방법이다. 이러한 합의형성에 영향을 주는 요인으로 다음 3가지를 들 수 있는데 1)주민참여보장, 2)형평성제고 및3)신뢰성강화 등이 그것이다. 이러한 3가지 요인들은 상호 연계되어 상호작용을 하는 체제로 간주할 때 그 시너지효과는 보다 커질 것이다. Among the various contemporary issues that confront the nation or society, surely one of the most difficult to resolve are environmental disputes between government authorities, developers, local residents and advocacy groups. While such disputes can in some cases be the result of a selfish and illegal NIMBY("Not In My Back Yard") syndrome, they can also be an expression of rational and appropriate demands from local residents to preserve the ecology and quality of life for their communities, particularly with respect to the planning of "locally unwanted land uses(LULUs). Accordingly, rethinking NIMBYism entails several implications for planning of LULUs. Until the 20th century many planners considered only "functional rationality" in their decision making, in a confrontational "us versus them" process of "decide-announce-defend(DAD)". I believe, however, that a fair, voluntary, and negotiated process of alternative dispute resolution(ADR) based on consensus building is the means to resolving these disputes. A voluntary process is more desirable and feasible than a coercive one, making ADR well worth pursuing. From this perspective, I explore several factors which affect the resolution of environmental disputes. I suggest three main factors as follows: ⅰ) extension of citizen participation, ⅱ) enhancement of equity, and ⅲ) building of trust. Alternatives are presented based on these factors.
이수장 ( Soo Jang Lee ) 한국지방행정연구원 2013 地方行政硏究 Vol.27 No.1
Taken together, the works of J. Habermas and M. Foucault highlight an essential tension in modernity. This is tension between the normative and the real, between what should be done and what is actually done. Understanding this tension is crutial to understanding modern planning, what it is and what it could be. It has been argued that an effective way of making democracy stronger is to strengthen civil society. This article contains analysis of the central ideas of Foucault as he pertains to the question of democracy and civil society. More specifically, the power analytics of Foucault evaluating his usefulness for those interested in understanding, and bringing about, democratic planning.