고령친화도시 조성을 위한 물리적 환경 관련 학술 연구 및 정책 비교를 통한 개선 제안 연구 = A Study on Improvement Proposals for Age-Friendly Cities Through Comparative Analysis of Academic Research and Policies on the Physical Environment

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As South Korea is confirmed to enter a super-aged society in 2025, facing an unprecedented rate of aging, the establishment of ‘Age-Friendly Cities(AFC)’ has emerged as an urgent national agenda, demanding a fundamental reorganization of urban planning and social policy. In response, there has been a quantitative expansion of policies, including a rapid increase in local governments joining the World Health Organization’s Global Network for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities(GNAFCC) and enacting related ordinances.
However, despite this expansion, current AFC policies in Korea tend to be heavily focused on social welfare services such as health and care. Critiques persist that the improvement of the physical environment remains relatively insufficient. Furthermore, even approaches to the physical environment have been criticized for remaining as dot-level partial improvements, rather than advancing toward area-based integrated and systematic environment creation that considers the actual daily travel paths of older adults.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between the academic discourse and policy practice concerning the creation of the ‘physical environment’ for AFCs in Korea. Specifically, it seeks to compare the key issues in domestic academic research with the actual projects in policy implementation, using the WHO guidelines as a standard. The goal is to diagnose the alignment and gaps between the two and to propose practical improvement measures.
This study's scope covers the 15-year period from 2010 to 2025, focusing on the three WHO physical environment domains: ‘Outdoor Spaces and Buildings’, ‘Transportation’, and ‘Housing’.
As a research method, the detailed ‘Checklist’ presented in the WHO's 「Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide」 was utilized as a standardized comparative analytical framework. First, to analyze academic discourse, a meta-analysis was conducted on 98 academic papers and dissertations from domestic fields of architecture, urban planning, and design to identify research trends, core topics, and detailed planning elements. Second, to analyze policy practice, an in-depth content analysis was performed on the Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 action plans and evaluation reports of GNAFCC-affiliated local governments, as well as the latest annual implementation plans from 38 local governments secured based on related ordinances. Finally, the planning elements proposed in academic research and the detailed projects in policy plans were matched to the same analytical framework (WHO checklist) to comparatively analyze the differences in priorities, approaches, and core content between the two.

The analysis revealed that while academia and policy practice share the common goal of improving the physical environment, they have distinct differences in their approaches and priorities. Academic discussions were primarily focused on diagnosing the current state of AFCs and developing future-oriented, ideal principles and tools, such as evaluation indicators, planning elements, and guidelines. In the housing domain, ‘Design’ based on Universal Design principles for new housing was a key topic, while in the transportation domain, ‘Safety and Comfort’, which is directly related to the qualitative experience of mobility, was heavily discussed. Policy practice, under limited budgets and administrative systems, concentrated on hardware-centric projects that are tangible, short-term, and easy to measure. In the housing domain, ‘Remodeling’ projects to resolve inconveniences in existing homes were overwhelmingly prevalent. In the transportation domain, support for ‘Taxis’ as a practical alternative to supplement public transportation networks, showed a high proportion.
An in-depth comparison of academic proposals and policy projects confirmed the existence of three fundamental gaps between the two. Academic research aimed for ‘plane’-level integrated planning that considers the entire daily travel paths of older adults and the network between spaces. In contrast, policy projects were fragmented into ‘dot’-level individual projects that solve problems at specific facilities or locations. Academia emphasized that for physical facilities to function effectively, related services and operational programs must be integrated. However, policy was heavily skewed toward hardware construction and maintenance projects, which are easy to budget for and measure, while the linkage with software was insufficient. Academic research presented ideal ‘Design’ principles, emphasizing a ‘preventive’ approach to preemptively eliminate future problems. Conversely, policy focused on a ‘reactive’ approach to solve urgent, already-existing problems, prioritizing practical ‘Remodeling’ and ‘Maintenance’ projects. These gaps were analyzed as the complex result of structural characteristics of the domestic policy environment as well as the inherent differences in roles between academia and the policy field.

This study empirically demonstrates that for South Korea’s AFCs to move beyond ‘dot’-level fragmented improvements to a ‘plane’-level integrated environment, strategies to bridge the gap between academic research and policy practice are necessary. To this end, it is proposed that academia should not only present ideal models but also strengthen empirical research on policy blind spots and develop ‘intermediate-level practical models’ that can be implemented within policy constraints.
For policy practice, the following improvement measures are proposed: First, designate ‘Age-Friendly Living Zone Pedestrian Networks’ and form a Task Force (TF) involving relevant departments (urban planning, transportation, welfare) to establish ‘plane’-level integrated plans. Second, institutionalize the integration of hardware and software (operational plans) from the design stage when promoting facility improvement projects. Third, while continuing short-term housing remodeling projects, a policy balance between ‘reaction’ and ‘prevention’ must be achieved by establishing preventive systems, such as mandating the application of Universal Design in new apartment construction.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1 장 서 론 1
• 1.1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 2
• 1.2. 연구의 범위 및 방법 4
• 1.2.1. 연구의 범위 4
• 1.2.2. 연구의 방법 5
• 1.3. 연구의 흐름 6
• 제 2 장 이론적 고찰 8
• 2.1. 고령친화도시의 개념 9
• 2.1.1. 고령친화도시의 국제 동향 9
• 2.1.2. WHO 고령친화도시 8대 영역 12
• 2.2. 국내 고령친화도시 조성 현황 및 관련 법 체계 분석 14
• 2.2.1. 국가 정책 및 법적 기반 14
• 2.2.2. 노인복지법 개정: 고령친화도시 법적 근거 신설 16
• 2.2.3. 지방정부 조례와 WHO 고령친화도시 추진 17
• 2.3. 고령친화도시 관련 선행연구 19
• 2.3.1. 국내 선행연구 19
• 2.3.2. 국외 선행연구 22
• 2.4. 학술 연구 및 정책 비교분석을 위한 분석틀 설계 25
• 제 3 장 국내 관련 학술 연구 분석 31
• 3.1. 학술 연구 분석 범위 및 현황 32
• 3.1.1. 학술 연구 분석 범위 설정 32
• 3.1.2. 분석 대상 연구의 일반적 현황 33
• 3.2. 학술 연구 유형과 대상의 관계 분석 41
• 3.3. WHO 점검항목에 따른 학술 연구의 세부 점검항목 분석 45
• 3.3.1. 야외공간과 건물 46
• 3.3.2. 교통 47
• 3.3.3. 주거 49
• 제 4 장 국내 지자체 관련 정책 분석 51
• 4.1. 중장기 전략 방향 분석: GNAFCC 실행계획 및 평가보고서 52
• 4.1.1. 국내 GNAFCC 가입 지자체 현황 52
• 4.1.2. 국내 지자체의 물리적 환경 분야 전략 변화 분석 55
• 4.1.3. 평가보고서를 통하 전략 변화 원인 분석 61
• 4.2. 단기 실행계획 분석: 조례 기반 연차별 시행계획 67
• 4.2.1 조례 및 조례 기반 연차별 시행계획 67
• 4.2.2. 연차별 시행계획 세부 분석 69
• 4.2.3. 연차별 시행계획의 특징과 한계 78
• 4.3. 소결 80
• 제 5 장 학술 연구와 정책의 비교분석 82
• 5.1. 분석 개요 및 비교 관점 설정 83
• 5.2. 점검항목의 분포 및 비중 분석 84
• 5.2.1. 야외공간과 건물 86
• 5.2.2. 교통 88
• 5.2.3. 주거 90
• 5.3. 내용적 정합성 분석 92
• 5.3.1. 공간적 분석 단위 92
• 5.3.2. 연구대상 및 사업의 성격 93
• 5.3.3. 문제해결 방식 95
• 5.4. 소결 96
• 제 6 장 결 론 98
• 참고문헌 102
• 영문초록 110
• 부록 113