| Title |
Comparison of Development Permit System According to the Concepts of Cultural Heritage and Historic-Culture Environment - Focused on Korea, England, and France |
| Authors |
차미니(Cha, Mini) ; 유석연(Yoo, Suk-Yeon) |
| DOI |
https://doi.org/10.38195/judik.2024.02.25.2.89 |
| Keywords |
문화유산; 역사문화환경; 행위제한 Cultural Heritage; Historic-Culture Environment; Development Permit System |
| Abstract |
This study aims to compare the concepts of cultural heritage and historic-culture environment in Korea, England, and France, and to derive differences in development permit systems according to differences in concepts. As a result of the study, cultural heritage was viewed as an object of property to be managed in Korea, as an object of public benefit in England, and as a concept of common ownership in France. While the historic-culture environment is seen as a buffer space around cultural heritage in Korea and France, it is regarded as a space for enjoyment in England. Recently, there has been a shift in concept to a space for enjoyment in Korea as well. This difference in concept appeared as a difference in the development permit system. First, regarding the legal system, Korea has a decentralized management system centered on regulations based on various laws, France has an integrated management centering on cultural heritage laws, and England has integrated management system centered on urban planning laws. In terms of restricting influential activities, Korea regulates negative development activities is limited through regulation, France regulates all activities but manages in a planned manner, while England maximizes the positive impact of development. In operating the system, Korea and France operate the system within the bounds of the law, while the UK and France regulate all influence activities but have expertise in operation. In addition, in Korea and France, buffer spaces were regulated from the perspective of preservation in terms of publicness and sociality. In England, they were used as a space for enjoyment to increase the usability of the historic-culture environment and to increase the publicness of development. |