지방자치단체 위기관리정책 집행과정에 관한 인식 비교연구 = (A)comparative study on the perception for crisis management policy
Crisis management policy is more emphasized in modern nation that has property of risk society. As civilization developed, science advanced so as to control risk from the nature. However, we have still lived in natural disaster. Human being experiences various man-made disasters such as social disaster as well as natural disaster. For example, there are calamity from artificial factors and constructions and social terror and war.
These natural disaster and man-made disaster are generically defined as crisis. We may have various possibilities when in comes to define crisis, however, with the point of view in crisis management policy, crisis means that the undesirable condition which make systems perilous as well as make achievement toward objects harden. Therefore, Crisis management policy is a series of targeted management processes to accomplish aim efficiently by predicting and reducing crisis. That is, Crisis management policy can be defined as psychological behavior group of individuals, society and government to pursue safety from crisis and to improve abundantly quality of live.
Our nation manages crisis by dividing three subgroups such as civil defence situation, man-made disaster and natural disaster. In research approaches of crisis management policy, there are administration system approach, implementation structure approach, decision-making approach, cognitive learning approach and implementation process approach. Crisis management policy has four stages such as mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery and these stages do not separate independently but execute by functioning mutually one after another.
This thesis focused on "A Comparative Study on the Perception for Crisis Management Policy Implementation Processes in Local Government" by selecting implementation process approach. Researcher especially concerns with the crisis management policy implementation processes of local government based on cases of storm damage annually repeated.
Thesis aims to find alternatives for efficiency on the crisis management policy implementation processes in local government, compared with concerns on cases of storm damage between bureaucrat group and residents. As ways of investigation, surveys, documentary research, in-depth interview technique and case study were used.
Using documentary research, we find significance on crisis, research approach and measures according to each stage in crisis. These processes are for researching crisis management policy system in Korea. We choose Saundra K. Schneider's study that analyzed crisis norms and bureaucratic norms by using the crisis management policy implementation processes as the preliminary study.
When cites Schneider's expression, crisis norms mean residencies' expectation on government implementations during the emergency and bureaucratic norms imply voluntary activities of government in crisis.
In dimension of implementation processes, to succeed in crisis management policy means there is little cognitive gap between crisis norms and bureaucratic norms. In other words, as disparity within both groups is large, crisis management policy tends to fail according to proportionate gap.
To accomplish the purpose of this study, storm Rusa occurred in 2002, caused great damage in Chungbuk area and storm Maemi happened in 2002 are chosen as the example cases. Based on two cases, we analyzed degree of gap between residencies' crisis norms who suffered damage and officers' bureaucratic norms in pertinent autonomy.
For inspect these factors, we set up following theses.
1. There maybe are differences among each stage in crisis management policy implementation processes in local government such as mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.
2. In the process of crisis management policy implementation processes, crisis norms may be regard mitigation and preparedness as important, yet bureaucratic norms may be consider response and recovery as more significant.
3. In researching crisis management policy implementation processes, difference of perception within both residential groups and official groups can be had greater gaps when asked questions that have conflict of interest than those of mutually neutral interest.
4. Based on experience on storm Rusa and Maemi, both residential groups and official groups will have the perception that they can cope with future crisis than prior un-prepared crisis situation.
To prove these hypotheses, documentary research, case study and surveyswere used. First, case study includes crisis management policy implementation processes of Yeongdong-gun in Chungbuk that suffered heavy damages of Rusa occurred in 2002 and crisis management policy implementation processes of Chungcheongbuk-do during storm Maemi in 2003.
Secondly, targeted areas of research analysis are the places where had great damage, including Yeongdong-gun, Okcheon-gun, Poun-gun and Jincheon-gun in Chungbuk. To accomplish surveys, these local residencies and officials who affiliated with provincial office in Chungcheongbuk-do are taken participated in research. Details on survey can be summarized like this; as 400 subjects, residencies 200 and officials 200 are composed but responser were 330 people.
Surveys divide domains of evaluation with mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery of the crisis management policy implementation processes and these stages are divided as domains of evaluation. In addition, to recognize perception of both groups on measured situation at each stage we subdivide domains of evaluation. After making independent questions, we survey again.
At the result of analysis, there are perceptional gaps between residential groups and official groups by showing difference in most measured index. It can be interpreted to have similar gaps at crisis norms and bureaucratic norms of each stage such as mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. However, the hypothesis that in the process of crisis management policy implementation processes, crisis norms may be regard mitigation and preparedness as important, yet bureaucratic norms may be consider response and recovery as more significant are not selected. Research reveals that both of two groups perceive that mitigation and preparedness stages are more important than response and recovery stages.
Moreover, questions that have mutually neutral interest show little difference, but those of have conflict of interest show great number of difference on perception.
Lastly, when it comes to learning effect since storm Rusa and Maemi, both residential groups and official groups show perception that they can efficiently cope with sudden crisis than present disposal revealing similar perception.
Therefore, we can acquire following conclusions from these research.
1. There are differences among each stage in crisis management policy implementation processes in local government such as mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.
2. The set-up hypothesis that in the process of crisis management policy implementation processes, crisis norms may be regard mitigation and preparedness as important, yet bureaucratic norms may be consider response and recovery as more significant are not selected. Research also reveals that both of two groups perceive that mitigation and preparedness stages are more important than response and recovery stages.
3. In researching crisis management policy implementation processes, difference of perception within both residential groups and official groups can be had greater gaps when asked questions that have conflict of interest than those of mutually neutral interest.
4. Based on experience on storm Rusa and Maemi, both residential groups and official groups will have the perception that they can cope with future crisis than prior un-prepared crisis situation.
In concluding, we know that there are limited factors toward achievement of goal in the process of the crisis management policy implementation processes in local government. According to these points, we discuss problems and alternatives of each stage in the crisis management policy implementation processes in local government. That is, it can be summarized like this. First, at the stage of mitigation, we show several solutions at the crisis management organization system, charged system of implementation processes in local government and disaster or safety management category. Secondly, at the preparedness stages, we discuss the problems and alternatives of the preparation education on disaster, drill, advertisement, cooperative system within official organizations and delivering system on information of disaster. Third, at the stage of response, we debate the problems and alternatives of water prevention and emergence restoration such as emergency rescue and relief, drainage pump. Lastly, at the stages of recovery, we have the discussion about the problems and alternatives in damage investigation, expense of disaster estimation or restoration and servings by volunteers.
Through these researches, in spite of risky generalization on two case studies, we can represent necessity of suitable policy alternatives based on local property on crisis.
분석정보
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
| 주요 개정내역 | 변경 사유 |
|---|---|
| · 개인정보 처리 목적, 항목 및 법적 근거 수정 · 본인대상정보전송요구권 행사 방법 안내 · 개인정보 보호수준 평가 결과 추가 |
|
한국교육학술정보원은 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
목 차
제1조(개인정보의 처리 목적)
제2조(개인정보의 처리 및 보유 기간)
제3조(처리하는 개인정보의 항목)
제4조(개인정보파일 등록 현황)
제5조(개인정보의 제3자 제공)
제6조(개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
제7조(개인정보의 파기 절차 및 방법)
제8조(정보주체와 법정대리인의 권리·의무 및 그 행사 방법)
제9조(개인정보의 안전성 확보조치)
제10조(개인정보 자동 수집 장치의 설치·운영 및 거부)
제11조(개인정보 보호책임자)
제12조(개인정보의 열람청구를 접수·처리하는 부서)
제13조(정보주체의 권익침해에 대한 구제방법)
제14조(추가적 이용·제공 판단기준)
제15조(개인정보 보호수준 평가 결과)
제16조(개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
제1조(개인정보의 처리 목적)
제2조(개인정보의 처리 및 보유 기간)
5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한
제3조(처리하는 개인정보의 항목)
제4조(개인정보파일 등록 현황)
개인정보파일 검색(privacy.go.kr)| 개인정보파일의 명칭 | 수집·이용 근거 | 수집·이용 목적 | 수집·이용 항목 | 보유·이용기간 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [학술연구정보 서비스 이용자 가입정보] |
「개인정보 보호법」 제15조 제1항 제4호(계약 이행) |
회원 서비스 운영 |
ID, 비밀번호, 이름, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 보호자 성명(어린이회원), 보호자 이메일(어린이회원) |
회원탈퇴시 까지 |
| 「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한 법률」 제6조 및 같은 법 시행령 제6조 |
주문 및 결제 처리 |
ID, 비밀번호, 이름, 주소 |
5년 |
제5조(개인정보의 제3자 제공)
제6조(개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
제7조(개인정보의 파기 절차 및 방법)
제8조(정보주체와 법정대리인의 권리·의무 및 그 행사 방법)
제9조(개인정보의 안전성 확보조치)
제10조(개인정보 자동 수집 장치의 설치·운영 및 거부)
제11조(개인정보 보호책임자)
| 구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
|---|---|---|
| KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 안재호 |
- 이메일 : jinuk@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0158 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
| KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 송진욱 | |
| RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 교육학술데이터본부 정광훈 |
- 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
| RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
제12조(개인정보의 열람청구를 접수·처리하는 부서)
제13조(정보주체의 권익침해에 대한 구제방법)
제14조(추가적인 이용ㆍ제공 판단기준)
제15조(개인정보 보호수준 평가 결과)
제16조(개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)