농어촌 영향평가 전문평가, 에너지복지정책 / 정신보건센터 / 이주여성긴급지원센터 / 주택바우처 : 농어업인 삶의 질 향상 위원회 전문지원기관 업무위탁

Abstract

농어촌 영향평가는 특정 정책이 농어촌 주민의 분산 거주, 불리한 접근성 등 농어촌 특성과 농어촌의 경제‧경관‧문화 등에 미치는 영향을 고려하여 추진되도록 하는 제도이다. 농어촌 영향평가는 ｢농어업인 삶의 질 향상 및 농어촌지역 개발촉진에 관한 특별법｣ 관련 9개 부처와 광역단위 지방자치단체에 의해 추진되는 자체평가와 삶의 질 위원회가 결정한 정책 사업에 대하여 전문지원기관에서 실시하는 전문평가가 있다. 2011년에 처음 실시된 농어촌 영향평가 전문평가 결과는 해당 부처의 사업 개선의 중요한 자료가 되었다.

올해 농어촌 영향평가 전문평가는 국정과제 및 중앙부처 업무 계획 등에 명시된 정책을 중심으로 4개 정책(산업통상자원부·보건복지부의 ‘에너지복지정책’, 보건복지부의 ‘정신보건센터’, 여성가족부의 ‘이주여성긴급지원센터’, 국토교통부의 ‘주택바우처’)에 대하여 수행되었다. 각 정책별로 도·농간의 생활여건과 관련한 정책 현황 분석과 함께 도·농간의 격차 실태를 분석하고, 도·농간의 격차 해소를 위한 추진 과제를 제시하고 있다.

In the year 2013, which is the second year for Korea Rural Economic Institute (KREI) being designated as ‘institute for support of the committee for improvement of quality of farmers and fishermen life’, the institute conducted supporting research activities for promoting effectiveness of the policy of improvement of quality of life. In 2012, it as an institute specializing in supporting organized grounds for basic researches whereas this year was to settle related research activities and to seek for development. Under this background, this study is to identify the level of quality of life in rural areas for promoting the policy effectively, and to propose improvement measures on the major policies by inspection and appraisal. In detail, the study is divided into 4 subjects in 2013; (1) Research and analysis on current situation of quality of life in the rural areas from various perspectives, (2) Inspection and appraisal on execution of service standards for the areas, (3) Effect evaluation on the rural community (mental health center, emergency support center for migrated women, energy, housing voucher program), (4) Indepth evaluation for each political program (rural industry acceleration, systematic management and practical use of amenities in the rural areas). The core purpose of this study is to provide basic infrastructure with regards to the policy on improvement of quality of life by researching and analyzing current situation, transition situation, residents’ satisfaction, and etc in the rural area from the various perspectives. In order to do so, the current situation regarding population, jobs, living environment is identified by various statistics. Followed by the last year, the ‘index for quality of life and regional development in 2013’ is drawn to identify quality of life and level of regional development by city and district. The level of satisfaction on subjective quality of life of the rural residents is identified by survey on the areas more extensive than the last year. Lastly, the issues of policy on improvement of quality of life and improving measures are drawn to conclusion based on the foregoing research and analysis. By the statistics of current situation of quality of life of rural residents, various aspects including population, housing, economy, industry, health, welfare, education, culture, and environment are reviewed. Elderly population is rapidly increasing in the rural areas where the ratio of vulnerable social group such as recipients of national basic livelihood guarantees and living-alone senior citizens is relatively high. For housing, self-owned housing yet many aged housing marked high while many households did not meet the minimum dwelling standards. From the perspective of employment and industry, the ratio of full-time employees is high in the rural areas but the company size and remuneration are low resulting in bad quality of employment compared to that of cities. In addition, amenities regarding medical treatment, welfare, education, culture, and etc seem be abundant in quantity compared to the population but accessibility is low. As identified, the rural areas have decent environmental condition compared to cities yet lack in many aspects. The current situation of quality of life in the rural areas is comprehensively reviewed by adjusting and utilizing the ‘index for quality of life and regional development’. The major differences are found in the level of quality of life and development for different regions and in 7 categories of quality of life. As similar to the last study’s findings, the rural areas still fell behind cities, and especially the quality of life in Jeonla province and central inland areas is relatively low. As of now, it is found that improvement of quality of life and regional development is most closely related to living environment. In other words, it implies that improvement of living condition such as housing, lifestyle base, and basic living service can lead to improvement of quality of residents’ life. It is required to calculate more simple and clear data to represent the quality of life in the rural areas for promoting policies on quality of rural residents life more efficiently in the future. With the foregoing, it is expected that the policies can be continuously promoted coping with the changes in the rural areas by conducting continuous monitoring based on the same standards. As a result of survey taken for the rural residents in 20 different places as expanded from 10 places last year, the level of happiness and satisfaction on housing is revealed as relatively positive. The level of satisfaction on environment, health, welfare, regional community, and education is relatively high whereas that for culture, leisure, regional economy, housing, and living environment is relatively low. The difference in level of satisfaction depends on attributes of individuals (households) rather than the development level of city or district. For the villages with increasing population and major villages, the overall satisfaction level is high except for the field of environment and regional community. The level of resident satisfaction in terms of ‘house and living infrastructure’, ‘education’, ‘welfare’ and ‘culture and leisure’ was higher in central villages, especially those with large population. The level of satisfaction of residents who lives quite far from local center(municipal office), that is with worse accessibility, turned out to be lower in terms of ‘house and living infrastructure’, ‘welfare’ and ‘culture and leisure’. The migration intention of residents is low whereas the major reasons for migration seekers are disadvantages or inconvenience in living infrastructure, income, education for children, and medical service. The residents in general feel uncomfortable for inconvenient accessability of transportation. In order to promote on policies on improvement of quality of life more effectively, the function and activities of the improvement on quality of life committee and secretariat need to be materialized. It maybe more realistic alternative that the Ministry of agriculture, forestry, and food as an assistant administrator enhance resource distribution such as finances and human resources with stronger political will. It is required for permanently established special agencies to conduct continuous activities while forming an organization and establishing operation system is also required to closely cooperate with an inspection & evaluation group (tentative title) and local authorities. The year 2014 is the year when evaluation on the 2nd stage of ‘basic plan for improvement on quality of life’ is taken place, and also the 3rd stage 5 year plan is established. The 3rd stage plan needs to be geared up with the expert groups for each region and field, and more importantly should include the voices of residents in the rural areas.

Researchers: Mihyoung Cho, Dae-Shik Park and Kyu-Hyoung Jeong Research period: 2013. 4～2013. 12 E-mail address: mihyoung@krei.re.kr