효율적인 치유농장 운영의 성공 요인 분석: 경상남도를 중심으로 = Analysis of Success Factors in Efficient Agro-healing Farm Management: Focused on Gyeongsangnam-do

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 경상남도 지역 내 치유농장 운영 실태를 조사하여 향후 경남지역에 적합한 치유농장 운영과 프로그램 개발을 위한 기초 자료를 제공하기 위해 수행되었다. 조사 결과, 37개 치유농장 중 62.1%는 기존에 교육농장, 사회적 농업 거점농장, 농가 맛집, 체험농장 등으로 운영되다가 3년 전부터 치유농업을 도입하여 현재 다양한 형태로 운영되고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 치유농장 시설의 경우, 숙박시설이 있는 농가는 40.5%, 예약제로만 운영되는 농가는 59.5%, 장애인을 위한 편의시설이 마련된 농가는 48.6%로 나타났다. 또한, 응급 처치 및 안전 관련 용품은 100%의 농가에서 비치하고 있었고, 치유농장 홍보는 SNS와 온라인을 이용하는 농가가 84.1%로 가장 많았다. 예방 중심형 치유 프로그램을 운영하는 농가는 76.2%였고, 개인보다 단체 참여 비율이 86.3%로 높게 나타났다. 치유 프로그램 운영자는 치유농업사 양성기관 교육을 이수하거나 치유농업 시설 운영자 교육 이수자 또는 치유농업사 자격 소지의 농장 경영주가 59.6%로 가장 많았으며, 1회당 참여 인원은 11명에서 20명까지가 43.2%, 1회당 운영 시간은 120분이 51.4%, 참가 비용은 1만원에서 3만원까지가 71.3%로 가장 많은 비중을 차지했다. 활용 자원으로는 식물 자원이 48.6%, 농촌 환경 문화 자원이 39.2%, 동물 및 곤충 자원이 12.2%로 나타났다. 프로그램 운영에 있어 치유농장 운영자의 전문성은 4.48점으로 가장 높았고, 치유농장 자원 중 환경 자원은 4.37점, 편의시설은 쾌적하고 청결한 환경 4.13점, 기타 부가서비스는 농장의 신뢰성이 4.45점으로 가장 중요한 요소로 평가되었다. 효율적인 치유농장 운영에 있어 치유농장 운영자의 전문성, 친밀감·편안한 분위기, 자연경관, 편안하고 안락한 시설, 농장의 신뢰성 요소는 서로 상관관계(p<.05)가 있는 것으로 나타났다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study was conducted to investigate the operational status of agro-healing farms in the Gyeongsangnam-do region and to provide foundational data for the future development of agro-healing farm operations and programs suitable for the Gyeongsangnam-do area. According to the survey, 62.1% of the 37 agro-healing farms had originally been operating as educational farms, social farms, farm restaurants, or experience farms, but introduced agro-healing agriculture three years ago and are now being run in various forms. Regarding facilities, 40.5% of farms have accommodation, 59.5% operate on a reservation-only basis, and 48.6% have accessibility features for individuals with disabilities. Additionally, 100% of farms had emergency supplies and safety equipment available, while 84.1% promoted their agro-healing farms through social media and online platforms. Farms operating prevention-focused agro-healing programs accounted for 76.2%, with a higher participation rate of 86.3% for groups compared to individuals. The largest proportion of agro-healing program operators, 59.6% were either farm owners who had completed training at a agro-healing agriculture certification institute, participated in training for agro-healing farm facility operators, or held a agro-healing agriculture certification. For each session, 43.2% of farms accommodated 11 to 20 participants, with 51.4% of sessions lasting 120 minutes. The most common participant fee was between 10,000 and 30,000 KRW, accounting for 71.3%. The resources utilized included plant resources (48.6%), rural environmental cultural resources (39.2%), and animal and insect resources (12.2%). In terms of program operation, the professionalism of agro-healing farm operators was rated highest at 4.48 points, followed by environmental resources at 4.37 points, comfort and cleanliness of facilities at 4.13 points, and the reliability of the farm at 4.45 points as the most important factors. In the efficient operation of the agro-healing farms, it was found that the factors of the operators' expertise, comfortable atmosphere, natural landscape, cozy facilities, and the farm's reliability are correlated with each other (p<.05).

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Hassink J, "The care farming sector in the Netherlands : A reflection on its developments and promising innovations" 12 (12): 3811-, 2020
• 2 Dessein J, "The Economics of Green Care in Agriculture" Loughborough University 2010
• 3 홍인경 ; 문지원 ; 이상미, "Searching for operation standards program through analysis trends in agro-healing for 5 years(2018~2022)" 58 (58): 21-32, 2024
• 4 Kim DS, "Research and analysis for establishing a systematic foundation for healing agriculture" 2019
• 5 RDA(Rural Development Administration), "Practical Approaches for Vitalizing Educational Farms (REFs)" 2013
• 6 Bragg R, "Growing care farming annual survey 2020:Full report" Thrive 2020
• 7 RDA(Rural Development Administration), "Green Prescription Provided by Agriculture and Rural Areas" Healing Agriculture Leaflet 2021
• 8 Elings M, "Farming for Health in the Netherlands" Springer 163-179, 2012
• 9 강대구 ; 이효진 ; 김경미, "Educational needs assessment of green care business managers" 50 (50): 23-54, 2018
• 10 Han SY, "Development of facility evaluation indicators for the application of universal design in healing farms:Focusing on Jeollabuk-do" Chungbuk National University 2024
• 11 Hassink J, "Combining agricultural production and care for persons with disabilities: A new role of agriculture and farm animals" 332-341, 2003
• 12 Hine R, "Care Farming in the UK: Evidence and opportunities. Report for the National Care Farmin Initiative" University of Essex 2008
• 13 김경미 ; 문지혜 ; 정순진 ; 이상미, "Analysis on the present status and characteristics of agro-healing in Korea" 20 (20): 909-936, 2013
• 14 이홍기 ; 이돈각 ; 김동준, "Analysis of recognition and preference according to the lodgment experience of forest healing program participants" 27 (27): 77-90, 2023
• 15 유은하 ; 김재순 ; 정순진 ; 강용구 ; 권혜림, "Analysis of programs provided by agro-healing farm in Korea : Focusing on agro-healing farms participated in agro-healing development pilot project" 15 (15): 1-12, 2021
• 16 Jeong NR, "An analysis of the physiological and psychological effects of forest healing" Chungbuk National University 2013
• 17 김옥자 ; 하규수, "A study on the variables affecting the intention to use healing agriculture" 13 (13): 59-72, 2018
• 18 유홍규 ; 최종산, "A study on factors influencing consumer’s intention to use care farming" 25 (25): 725-733, 2024