바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1225-6706
  • E-ISSN2733-4295
  • KCI

ISSN : 1225-6706

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.31 No.2

Citation Share

사회적 혼합(social mix)에 관한 쟁점과 과제: 영국, 네덜란드, 캐나다의 사례를 중심으로

Issues and Challenges on Social Mix: Lessons from the UK, the Netherlands, and Canada

공간과 사회 / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2021, v.31 no.2, pp.103-139
https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2021.31.2.103
오도영 (The London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London)
박준 (서울시립대학교)
김규희 (네덜란드 암스테르담 자유대학)
유승동 (상명대학교)
오도영, 박준, 김규희, & 유승동. (2021). 사회적 혼합(social mix)에 관한 쟁점과 과제: 영국, 네덜란드, 캐나다의 사례를 중심으로. 공간과 사회, 31(2), 103-139, https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2021.31.2.103

초록

이 논문은 사회주택(social housing)을 기반으로 진행된 사회적 혼합(social mix)과 관련한 주요 쟁점을 검토하고, 사회적 혼합 정책이 장기간 진행된 영국, 네덜란드, 캐나다의 사례를 분석하여 한국의 향후 사회적 혼합 추진과 관련한 시사점을 도출한다. 3개국의 경험을 분석한 결과 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 사회적 혼합은 단순한 주택 거주형태의 혼합만이 아닌 효과적 갈등 예방과 해소를 위한 참여 기반 관리체계 수립과 계층 간 자연스러운 교류를 촉진할 수 있는 물리적 환경 조성이 중요한 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 사회적 혼합은 중앙정부와 지방정부, 사회적 경제주체 등 여러 행위자 간의 긴밀한 협력을 통해 사업의 기획 단계에서부터 추진되어야 하며, 여러 계층 간 발생할 수 있는 갈등을 효율적으로해결할 수 있는 관리체계의 확립이 필수적이다. 셋째 사회주택의 재고량이 부족할수록 사회적 낙인과 배제의 문제가 심각해지므로 효과적인 사회적 혼합을 위해 사회주택 재고량자체를 충분히 늘리는 정책이 전제되어야 한다.

keywords
Social Housing, Social Mix, UK, Netherlands, Canada, 사회주택, 사회적 혼합, 영국, 네덜란드, 캐나다

Abstract

This paper examines issues and challenges related to social mix in social housing estates focused on the cases of the UK, the Netherlands, and Canada, where social mix has been promoted over a long period of time. Then this paper aims to draw implications for Korea’s future provision of social mix. The interest in the social mix as a means to prevent spatial exclusion and social segregation of low-income households has been growing since 2000. This paper concludes that a simple mix of different tenures cannot easily achieve a social mix. It also confirms that a successful social mix needs a participation-based management system for effective conflict prevention and resolution and a physical environment that can promote natural exchanges between residents having different backgrounds. On the other hand, an insufficient inventory of social housing tends to lead to stigma and exclusion of social housing residents. Therefore, policies aimed at increasing the social housing stock need to be implemented first and foremost.

keywords
Social Housing, Social Mix, UK, Netherlands, Canada, 사회주택, 사회적 혼합, 영국, 네덜란드, 캐나다

참고문헌

1.

고진수·이창무. 2014. ｢행복주택이 인근 주택가격에 미치는 영향｣. ≪주택연구≫, 25(2), 153~174쪽.

2.

김승남·김재홍. 2013. ｢근린의 사회적 혼합 수준과 거주민의 사회자본 형성 및 도움수혜 경험의 실증적 관계｣. ≪국토연구≫, 76, 93~112쪽.

3.

김원. 2008. ｢1971년 광주 대단지 사건 연구: 도시 봉기와 도시하층민｣. ≪기억과 전망≫, 18, 196~231쪽.

4.

김준형·김성제·최막중. 2005. ｢임대주택 사회적 혼합의 장애요인과 해소방안에 관한 연구｣. ≪국토계획≫, 40(5), 153~163쪽.

5.

박관민·송명규·이경진. 2009. ｢임대아파트 단지에 대한 사회적 배제의 실증연구｣. ≪도시행정학보≫, 22(3), 107~131쪽.

6.

배순석·천현숙·진정수·전성제·김승종 외, 2006, 도시 주거공간의 사회통합 실현방안 연구.

7.

백혜선·이영환·김지원, 2017, 공급유형 혼합단지 계획기준 및 관리방안 연구.

8.

봉인식·이용환, 2018, 공익적 임대주택 공급 확대를 위한 민간의 역할에 관한 연구.

9.

서수정, 김주진, 정경일, 설정임, 2004, 국민임대주택의 사회통합적 계획방안 연구.

10.

오도영. 2017. ｢금융화(financialization) 과정 속에서 본 영국의 저렴주택 제도｣. ≪공간과 사회≫, 61, 49~87쪽.

11.

오도영·박준·김혜승. 2015. ｢영국 주거복지정책의 변화 : 2010년 이후 심화된 신자유주의적변화를 중심으로｣. ≪공간과 사회≫, 52, 227~266쪽.

12.

이주현. 2012. ｢분양·임대아파트 혼합주거단지의 공간구성과 사회적 혼합 - 하남 풍산지구와시흥 능곡지구 비교 연구｣. ≪지리학논총≫, 58, 77~95쪽.

13.

정경훈, 2014. ｢공공임대주택과 범죄발생 관계에 관한 연구｣. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.

14.

진미윤·김수현. 2017. 『꿈의 주택정책을 찾아서』. 서울: 오월의봄.

15.

Arthurson, K. 2002. “Creating Inclusive Communities through Balancing Social Mix: A Critical Relationship or Tenuous Link?” Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.245~261.

16.

August, M. and A. Walks. 2011. “From Social Mix to Political Marginalisation? The Redevelopment of Toronto's Public Housing and the Dilution of Tenant Organisational Power.” in G. Bridge, T. Butler and L. Lees(eds.). Mixed Communities:Gentrification By Stealth?. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

17.

Bektaş, Y. and T. Taşan-Kok. 2020. “Love Thy Neighbor? Remnants of the Social-Mix Policy in the Kolenkit Neighborhood, Amsterdam.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.743~761.

18.

Bucerius, S. M., S. K. Thompson and L. Berardi. 2017. ““They’re Colonizing My Neighborhood”: (Perceptions of) Social Mix in Canada.” City & Community, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.486~505.

19.

CBS (Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics), 2011, Housing Associations Own One in Three Dutch Homes. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2011/49/housing-associations-own-one-in-three-dutch-homes(검색일: 2021.4.1).

20.

Chua, B. H. 1991. “Race Relations and Public Housing Policy in Singapore.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.343~354.

21.

Cole, I. and S. Green, 2010, Neighbourhood Social Mix: Contrasting Experiences in Four Challenging Neighbourhoods. https://research.shu.ac.uk/cresr/living-throughchange/documents/RP6_NeighbourhoodSocialMix.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

22.

CURE (Centre for Urban Research and Education, Carleton University), 2015, Business Transformation: Promising Practices for Social and Affordable Housing in Canada, Housing Partnership Canada. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Social-Affordable-Housing-Canada-Report.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

23.

DCLG (UK Department for Communities and Local Government), 2010, Evaluation of the Mixed Communities Initiative Demonstration Projects: Final Report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6360/1775216.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

24.

DCLG, 2011, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing.

25.

DutchNews. 2018.8.8. “Social Housing Waiting Lists Grow as More ‘Urgent Cases’ Get Priority.” https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/08/social-housing-waiting-listsgrow-as-more-urgent-cases-get-priority/(검색일: 2021.4.1).

26.

Edelman, Valerya. 2019. “There Goes the Neighbourhood: A Case Study of Social Mix in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” Master Thesis, School of Social Work, University of Victoria.

27.

Elsinga, M. and F. Wassenberg. 2014. “Social Housing in the Netherlands.” in K. Scanlon, C. Whitehead and M. F. Arrigoitia(eds.). Social Housing in Europe. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

28.

Evening Standard. 2018.10.17. “There Goes the Neighbourhood? Fears as Private Equity Moves in on Social Housing.” https://www.standard.co.uk/business/focus-theregoes-the-neighbourhood-fears-as-private-equity-moves-in-on-social-housing-a3964271.html(검색일: 2021.4.1).

29.

Financial Times. 2018.5.11. “Blackstone under Fire over Push into UK Social Housing.” https://www.ft.com/content/6a68b7c8-4ec9-11e8-9471-a083af05aea7(검색일:2021.4.1).

30.

Forrest, R. and A. Kearns. 2001. “Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.”Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 12, pp.2125~2143.

31.

Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018, Woningbouwplan 2018-2025.

32.

Gentleman, Amelia. 2017.11.13. “Grenfell Tower MP highlights huge social divisions in London.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/13/grenfell-tower-mp-highlights-huge-social-divisions-in-london(검색일: 2021.4.1).

33.

GLA (Greater London Authority), 2016, The London Plan.

34.

GLA, 2017, Homes for Londoners: Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance 2017.

35.

Goering, J., A. Kamely and T. Richardson. 1997. “Recent Research on Racial Segregation and Poverty Concentration in Public Housing in the United States.” Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.723~7245.

36.

Grant, Harriet and C. Michael. 2019.3.25. “Too Poor to Play: Children in Social Housing Blocked from Communal Playground.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-play-children-in-social-housing-blocked-from-communal-playground(검색일: 2021.4.1).

37.

Gurstein, Penny, 2015, The Future of Public Housing: Trends in Public HousingInternationally. http://scarp-futureofpublichousing.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/07/The-Future-of-Public-Housing-Report-05-11-15.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

38.

Hes, Joyce. 2020.2.24. “The Success of SET.” IJopener. https://www.ijopener.nl/sociaal/het-succes-van-set/(검색일: 2021.4.1).

39.

Kim, K. and P. Smets. 2020. “Home Experiences and Homemaking Practices of Single Syrian Refugees in an Innovative Housing Project in Amsterdam.” Current Sociology, Vol. 68, No. 5, pp.607~627.

40.

Lees, L. 2008. “Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance?”Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 12, pp.2449~2470.

41.

Manley, D. and M. van Ham. 2011. “Choice-Based Letting, Ethnicity and Segregation in England.” Urban Studies, Vol. 48, No. 14, pp.3125~3143.

42.

Massey, D. S. 1990. “American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.”American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp.329~357.

43.

Massey, D. S. and J. Tannen. 2018. “Suburbanization and Segregation in the United States:1970-2010.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 41, No. 9, pp.1594~1611.

44.

Mele, C. 2019. “The Strategic Uses of Race to Legitimize ‘Social Mix’ Urban Redevelop ment.” Social Identities, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.27~40.

45.

Mulrenan, Patrick. 2019.5.3. “The Long History of Social Housing Segregation in Britain.”British Politics and Policy at LSE. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/socialhousing-segregation/(검색일: 2021.4.1).

46.

Musterd, S. 2008. “Residents’ Views on Social Mix: Social Mix, Social Networks and Stigmatisation in Post-War Housing Estates in Europe.” Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.897~915.

47.

NHBC Foundation, 2015, Tenure Integration in Housing Developments: A Literature Review. https://urbanrim.org.uk/cache/NF66-Literature-Review.pdf(검색일:2021.4.1).

48.

OECD, 2021, Social Rental Housing Stock. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/PH4-2-Social-rental-housing-stock.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

49.

Ostendorf, W., S. Musterd and S. de Vos. 2001. “Social Mix and the Neighbourhood Effect:Policy Ambitions and Empirical Evidence.” Housing Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.371~380.

50.

Savills, 2019, Additionality of Affordable Housing: Final Report. https://thinkhouse.org.uk/site/assets/files/1471/savills0419.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

51.

Schilder, Frans and R. Scherpenisse. 2018.4. “Policy and Practice: Affordable Housing in the Netherlands.” Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, pp.80~91.

52.

Social Exclusion Unit, 2000, National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: A Framework for Consultation.

53.

Social Life. 2016. “Mixed housing: Where's the Evidence?” http://www.social-life.co/blog/post/mixed_housing_evidence/#_ftn1(검색일: 2021.4.1).

54.

Steel, M. 2007. “Canadian Housing Allowances.” in P. A. Kemp(ed.). Housing Allowances in Comparative Perspective. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press.

55.

Ridley, Louise. 2016.8.5. “Broadwater Farm Estate's Youth are Battling to Escape the 'Folklore' of Mark Duggan's Death and 1985 Riot.” The Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/broadwater-farm-estate-riot-mark-duggan_uk_57a2cf3fe4b06c6e8dc686c6(검색일: 2021.4.1).

56.

Rowlands, Rob, A. Murie and A. Tice. 2006. More Than Tenure Mix: Developer and Purchaser Attitudes to New Housing Estates. Coventry, UK: Chartered Institute of Housing.

57.

Thibert, Joel, 2007, Inclusion and Social Housing Practice in Canadian Cities: Following the Path from Good Intentions to Sustainable Projects. https://secureweb.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning/files/urbanplanning/Joel_Thibert_CPRN.pdf(검색일:2021.4.1).

58.

Tunstall, R. and R. Lupton, 2010, Mixed Communities: Evidence Review. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7606/1775206.pdf(검색일: 2021.4.1).

59.

Van Dyk, N. 1995. “Financing Social Housing in Canada.” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.815~848.

60.

Van Kempen, R. and G. Bolt. 2009. “Social Cohesion, Social Mix, and Urban Policies in the Netherlands.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 24, pp.457~475.

61.

Wolfe, J. M. 1998. “Canadian Housing Policy In The Nineties.” Housing Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.121~134.

공간과 사회

논문 투고 OA 정책