셉테드 평가 방법에 관한 연구 : 보행 공간을 중심으로 = A Study on CPTED Evaluation Methods: Focusing on Pedestrian Spaces

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

With the rapid development of society and the improvement of living standards, the importance of safety design in urban environments has been increasingly emphasized. The elimination of crime and anxiety has become one of the main factors threatening the quality of life. Accordingly, CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) has attracted growing attention as an important strategy for improving the urban residential environment.
Especially in pedestrianspaces with high daily use frequency, although the performance of preventive facilities has improved compared to the past, the number of installations has increased, and patrol personnel have also become more numerous, crime rates have not decreased accordingly.
This indicates that research and technological development in the field of crime prevention design and related preventive measures remain insufficient, and suggests the need to supplement existing approaches with a more comprehensive design-based checklist system. In addition, there is a need for objective and quantitative analysis of crime risk using methods that are not affected by environmental changes and that possess general applicability. In response to this demand, this study proposes a design-centered direction for the development of CPTED.
In response to this need, this study aims to advance the development of CPTED with a design-centered approach.
First, based on theoretical research, the study explains the importance of design and environmental factors in crime prevention design and explores innovative evaluation factors centered on design. Urban pedestrian-related spaces were categorized into three types—street spaces, facility-surrounding spaces, and park–recreational spaces—according to spatial characteristics. This classification is based on CPTED guidelines, which emphasize that both functional and aesthetic values contribute to a sense of safety, and that excellent functionality and aesthetics play an important role in enhancing users’ perceptions of safety. On this basis, the study expands “design enhancement” as the seventh fundamental principle of CPTED.
During the empirical research stage, the importance of checklist items for each space was analyzed. An expertsurvey using AHP was conducted to derive the importance of CPTED checklist items for different space types. However, whether expert perceptions are consistent with citizens‘ experiences during actual space use still requires further verification.
Therefore, third, based on the AHP results, the study conducted an Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) experiment, collecting citizens’ evaluations of satisfaction with each space and analyzing them in the IPA matrix. Through this process, the main checklist items requiring improvement in each space were identified, and the consistency between AHP importance rankings and IPA satisfaction evaluations was examined, thereby verifying the practical validity of expert judgments.
The specific conclusions of this study are as follows: 1) Pedestrianspaces were systematized into a CPTED checklist framework consisting of seven principles, and differentiated evaluation items were established according to space type, with importance rankings derived through AHP analysis. 2) By comparing exemplary spaces with generalspaces and applying IPA analysis, specific improvement needs for pedestriansafety design in each space type were identified. 3) The empirical results of the AHP and IPA analyses indicate a substantial gap between "importance" and "satisfaction, " particularly for items such as preventive facilities, separation facilities, and effective sidewalk width, which exhibit high importance but low satisfaction and are therefore identified as priority items for improvement. 4) It is proposed that only through a comprehensive analysis of the physical, functional, and environmental attributes of pedestrianspaces can the core needs and problems of the space be accurately identified. 5) The study shows that open, semi-open, and enclosed spaces exhibit different safety perceptions, and users‘ perceived sense of safety changes according to the degree of openness. 6) The significant differences in needs and satisfaction levels among different pedestrian-space types verify the necessity of implementing customized and differentiated management strategies based on spatial characteristics.
In conclusion, through the integrated approach of “AHP analysis → IPA experiment,” this study establishes an urban space safety evaluation system that reflects both expert and citizen perspectives. The proposed framework contributes to developing a more scientific, practical, and human-centered CPTED evaluation model.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

随着社会的快速发展和生活水平的提高，社会的安全设计正逐渐成为更加重要的课题。犯罪与不安的消除是威胁生活质量的主要因素，因此 CPTED（犯罪预防设计）逐渐受到关注，成为改善城市居住环境的重要策略。
特别是在日常使用频率较高的步行空间中，尽管防范设施的性能相比过去有所提升，安装数量增加，巡逻人员也有所增多，但犯罪发生率并未随之下降。这表明在犯罪预防设计等防范领域的研究与技术开发仍然不足，并提示需要开发更完善的设计检查表体系加以补充。此外，还需要采用不受环境变化影响、具有普适性的方式，对犯罪风险进行客观、定量的分析。为应对这一需求，本研究提出了以设计为核心的 CPTED 发展方向。
首先，通过理论考察讨论了犯罪预防设计与环境因素的重要性，并探索了以设计为中心的创新性检查表。根据空间特性，将城市步行相关空间划分为街道空间、设施周边空间、公园休闲空间三种类型。这是基于 CPTED 指南中所指出的“功能性与审美价值都能够提升安全感”，尤其是优秀的功能性与美学设计会对安全感形成产生积极影响。本研究据此将“设计强化”扩展为 CPTED 的第七原则。
其次，在实证研究阶段，对按层级结构分类的检查表项目的重要度进行了分析。通过 AHP（层次分析法）进行专家问卷调查，得出了不同空间类型的 CPTED 检查表的相对重要度。然而，专家认知是否与市民在实际使用空间时的主观体验相一致，仍需要进一步验证。因此，第三步本研究基于AHP分析结果开展了IPA（重要度–满意度分析）实验。面向市民开展空间满意度调查，并将结果应用于IPA矩阵进行细致分析。通过此过程，提取出各类空间中需要改善的主要检查表项目，并与AHP中的重要度排名进行一致性验证，从而确认专家判断的现实有效性。
本研究的具体结论如下。 1) 将步行空间用 CPTED 检查表体系化为七大原则，构建了不同空间类型的差异化评价项目，并通过 AHP 推导出重要度排序。 2) 通过对优秀空间与一般空间的比较及 IPA 分析，具体提出了各空间在步行安全设计上的改进必要点。 3) AHP 与 IPA 的实证分析结果显示“重要度–满意度”之间存在较大差距，尤其是防范设施、隔离设施、有效步道宽度等项目的重要度高而满意度低，是优先改善的项目。 4) 提出需综合分析步行空间的物理、功能及环境属性，才能掌握空间的核心需求与问题，这是提升安全性与舒适性的设计必备条件。 5) 研究表明开放、半开放、封闭空间具有不同的安全认知结构，且随着开放程度的不同，使用者所感知的安全要素影响力也会变化。 6) 不同类型的步行空间在各评价指标中的需求与满意度存在显著差异，由此验证了基于空间特性的“定制化·差异化管理策略”的必要性。
最终，本研究通过“AHP 分析 → IPA 实验”的综合方法，构建了能够同时反映专家与市民双重视角的城市空间安全性评价体系。由此提出了更加科学、更加实质、以人为中心的 CPTED 评价框架。

목차 (Table of Contents)

• ABSTRACT ⅶ
• 제 1 장 서론 1
• 1.1. 연구의 배경 및 필요성 2
• 1.2. 연구의 목적 4
• 1.3. 연구의 범위 5
• 1.4. 연구의 방법 및 프로세스 6
• 제 2 장 이론적 고찰 8
• 2.1. 셉테드의 이론적 배경 9
• 2.1.1. 셉테드의 개념 9
• 2.1.2. 셉테드의 적용원리 10
• 2.1.3. 셉테드의 범죄발생 구조 11
• 2.1.4. 셉테드의 환경의 중요성 11
• 2.1.5. 보행공간의 개념 및 역할 12
• 2.2. 셉테드의 연구 동향 13
• 2.2.1. 셉테드의 발전 개요 13
• 2.2.2. 셉테드의 패러다임 변화 14
• 2.2.3. 현재 셉테드의 문제점 16
• 2.3. 소결 16
• 2.4. 시사점 17
• 제 3 장 선행연구 18
• 3.1. 보행공간의 공간 유형 분류 19
• 3.2. 셉테드의 7가지 적용원리 제안 21
• 3.3. 소결 22
• 3.4. 시사점 23
• 제 4 장 실증 연구 24
• 4.1. 셉테드 7가지 원리 중요도 분석 25
• 4.1.1 AHP 설문 연구 방법 및 과정 25
• 4.1.1.1. AHP 기법을 활용한 연구 방법 25
• 4.1.1.2. 보행공간의 체크리스트 확정 26
• 4.1.1.3. 전문가 대상 상대적 중요도 설문 31
• 4.1.2. 체크리스트별 가중치 도출 32
• 4.1.2.1. 공간별 중요도 분석 33
• 4.1.2.2. 가로 공간 중요도 분석 33
• 4.1.2.3. 시설주변 공간 중요도 분석 35
• 4.1.2.4. 공원휴양 공간 중요도 분석 37
• 4.1.3. 설문 결과 종합 39
• 4.2. 소결 41
• 4.3. 실제 검증 분석 42
• 4.3.1. IPA 설문 연구 방법 및 과정 42
• 4.3.1.1. IPA 기법을 활용한 연구 방법 42
• 4.3.1.2. 검증 시험 대상지 선정 43
• 4.3.1.3. 이용가 대상 상대적 만족도 설문 44
• 4.3.1.4. 가중치 분배에 대한 데이터 분석 결과 45
• 4.3.2. 사례공간 유형별 비교분석 49
• 4.3.2.1. 각 공간 유형의 그래프 분석 49
• 4.3.2.1.1. 가로 공간 유형의 그래프 분석 49
• 4.3.2.1.2. 시설주변 공간 유형의 그래프 분석 52
• 4.3.2.1.3. 공원휴양 공간 유형의 그래프 분석 56
• 4.3.2.2. 보행공간 유형별 그래프 비교 분석 59
• 4.3.2.2.1. 가로 공간 우수사례 및 일반사례 공간 그래프 분석 59
• 4.3.2.2.2. 시설주변 공간 우수사례 및 일반사례 공간 그래프 분석 61
• 4.3.2.2.3. 공원휴양 공간 우수사례 및 일반사례 공간 그래프 분석 63
• 4.3.3. 설문 결과 종합 65
• 4.4. 소결 68
• 제 5 장 결론 69
• 5.1. 연구결과 요약 70
• 5.2. 비 일반적 결론 72
• 5.3. 시사점 73
• 5.4. 한계점 및 향후연구 73
• 참 고 문 헌 75
• 설 문 지 79