¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ / v.16, no.3, 2002³â, pp.261-270
±¹¸³°ø¿ø ÀÔÀå·á¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À̿밴 ÀÇ½Ä Á¶»ç - ¼Ó¸®»ê±¹¸³°ø¿ø À̿밴À» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î -
( A Survey on the Visitor's Cognition of Admission fee in National Park - The Case Study of Songnisan National Park - )
±è¿ë±Ù;Á¶ÁßÇö;¹ÚÅÂÈñ; ¼­¿ï½Ã¸³´ëÇб³ °ÇÃà¤ýµµ½Ã¤ýÁ¶°æÇкÎ;¼­¿ï½Ã¸³´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø Á¶°æÇаú;µ¿½Å´ëÇб³ µµ½Ã¤ýÁ¶°æÇкÎ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸´Â ±¹¸³°ø¿øÀÇ ½Ç¼ö¿äÀÚÀÎ À̿밴µéÀÇ ÇöÇà ÀÔÀå·á ¡¼öü°è¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀνÄÀ» Á¶»ç.ºÐ¼®Çϱâ À§ÇÑ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. À̸¦ À§ÇØ ¼Ó¸®»ê±¹¸³°ø¿øÀ» ãÀº À̿밴µéÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î »çȸ°æÁ¦Àû Ư¼º, ¹æ¹®À¯Çü°ú ÀÌ¿ëÇàÅÂ, ÇöÇà ±¹¸³°ø¿ø ÀÔÀå·á ¡¼öü°è¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÎ½Ä µîÀ» ÁÖ¿ä³»¿ëÀ¸·Î ¼³¹®Á¶»ç¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ȸ¼öµÈ 345ºÎÀÇ ¼³¹®Áö Áß À¯È¿Ç¥º»Àº 339ºÎ¿´´Ù. ÀÀ´äÀÚµéÀÇ »çȸ°æÁ¦Àû Ư¼º°ú ¹æ¹®À¯Çü, ¹æ¹®¸ñÀû µîÀº ´Ù¸¥ ±¹¸³°ø¿ø À̿밴 Á¶»ç¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³­ °á°ú¿Í À¯»çÇÑ °æÇâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ÀÀ´äÀÚµéÀÇ ´ëºÎºÐÀº ±¹¸³°ø¿ø ÀÔÀå·á°¡ ÀÎ»ó ¿©ºÎ¿Í ¡¼öµÈ ÀÔÀå·áÀÇ »ç¿ëó¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼­ ÀÎÁöÇÏÁö ¸øÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ÇöÀç ÀÔÀå·áÀÇ ¼öÁØ¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼­ 'ºñ½Î´Ù'°í ÀνÄÇϰí ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌµé ´ëºÎºÐÀº ±¹¸³°ø¿ø ÀÔÀå·á¿¡ ¹®È­Àç °ü¶÷·á°¡ Æ÷ÇԵǾî ÀÖ´Ù´Â »ç½ÇÀ» ÀÎÁöÇϰí ÀÖ¾úÀ¸³ª ÀÔÀå·áÀÇ ÇÕµ¿Â¡¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼­´Â °­ÇÑ ¹Ý´ëÀǻ縦 ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. ±¹¸³°ø¿ø ¹®È­ÀçÀÇ ¹üÀ§¸¦ '»çÂû°æ³»¿¡ ÀÖ´Â ºÒ±³¹®È­Àç'¶ó°í ÀνÄÇÏ´Â ÀÀ´äÀÚ¿Í '»çÂû°ú »çÂûÁÖº¯ÀÇ ¹®È­Àç»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¿ïâÇÑ »ï¸²µµ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ´Â ±¤ÀÇÀû °³³ä'À̶ó´Â ÀÀ´äÀÚ°¡ ºñ±³Àû ´ëµîÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³­ ¹Ý¸é ¹®È­Àç °ü¶÷·á ¡¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼­´Â ¿ª½Ã ºÎÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ÀνÄÀÌ °­ÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
The purpose of this study is to survey and analyze of the visitor's cognition of admission fee collection system in National Park. To accomplish the purposes, a questionnaire survey was employed in Songnisan National Park. The contents of questionnaire consist of the socioeconomic characteristics and the types of visiting, the activity, the cognition of admission fee collection system.339 samples of total 345 respondents were used for final analysis. As a result of the analysis, the socioeconomic characteristics and the types of visiting, the visiting purpose were showed similar trends with results from other National Park visitors survey. Most of respondents didn't recognize the raise of admission fee and how to use the admission fee. And they recognized that it is too expensive. Most of respondents recognized the joint collection of admission fee but they were strong against it. About the range of cultural assets in National Park, the cognition of 'Only Buddhism's assets in temple' was almost equal with the cognition of 'It includes not only cultural assets of inside and outside temple but also thick forest in National Park'. But most of respondents were strong against the collection of admission fee of cultural assets.
 
Ű¿öµå
ÀÔÀå·á ¡¼öü°è;¹®È­Àç °ü¶÷·á;ÇÕµ¿Â¡¼ö;ADMISSION FEE COLLECTION SYSTEM;ADMISSION FEE OF CULTURAL ASSETS;JOINT COLLECTION;
 
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸÁö / v.16, no.3, 2002³â, pp.261-270
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-3857
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200211921503144)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿