Political leadership and community participation
•
1 like•626 views
Political leadership and community participation - Fifteen years experience of Safe Community Promotion in Korea Joonpil Cho, M.D. jpcho@ajou.ac.kr Chair and Professor Center for Community Safety Promotion Ajou University Medical Center Suwon, Korea www.nansafecom2015.com
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Political leadership and community participation
Similar to Political leadership and community participation (20)
More from csip.org > slide ความปลอดภัยในเด็ก
More from csip.org > slide ความปลอดภัยในเด็ก (16)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Political leadership and community participation
- 1. Political leadership and community participation - Fifteen years experience of Safe Community Promotion in Korea Joonpil Cho, M.D. jpcho@ajou.ac.kr Chair and Professor Center for Community Safety Promotion Ajou University Medical Center Suwon, Korea
- 2. Safe communities in Asian Region Safe Communities in Korea Strategies of Safe Community Programs implementation
- 3. Safe communities in Asian Region Safe Communities in Korea Strategies of Safe Community Programs implementation
- 4. Korea International Safety Community Support Center: Center for Community Safety Promotion at Ajou University Medical Center Suwon Programs launching in 1998 Designation: 2002 The 1st in Korea and in Asia The 63rd in the World Population: 1.2 millions Hosted the 1st Asian Conference on SC in 2002 Hosted the International conference in 2010 By Nov. 2015: 10 communities designated
- 5. A ferry sinking in April, 2014 Lauching SC Programs Gwangju metropolitan Suncheon Guechang Gumi Woolsan, Nam District Asan Pyungteak Gwangju City Jeonju Youngwol
- 6. China Hong Kong: 2 in 2003 10 by 2015 Tuen Mun (2003,2009) Kwai Tsing (2003,2008) Sham Shui Po (2006, 2011) Tung Chung (2006, 2011) Tai Po (2005, 2010) Tsuen Wan (2006, 2011) Sai Kung (2009) Wong Tai Sin (2011) Southern District (2011) Shandong Youth Park in 2007 Mainland: 1 in 2007 89 by 2015 International Safety Community Support Centers: China Occupational Safety and Health Agency (COSHA) in Beijing and HK
- 7. Taiwan, China Neihu urban metropolitan Dungshr rural agricultural Fengbin rural seashore, tourism Alishan aboriginal, mountainous The first 4 platforms for Safe Communities in 2005 19 by Nov. 2015 International Safety Community Support Center: Taiwanese Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion Association (TIPSPA)
- 8. Vietnam Safe Communities: 5 in 2006 5 in 2007 Less active recently
- 9. Safe Communities: Kameoka in 2008 11 by Nov. 2015 Japan International Safety Community Support Center: Japanese Institute for Safe Community (JISC)
- 10. Tambon Chomphu, Phitsanulok Province Thapladuk, Lamphoon Province Nan Municipality, Nan Province Wang Sai Phoon Pichit Province Talad Kriab Municipality Ayutthaya Province Soi Su Rao, Bangkok Soi Saun Ngern, Bangkok Ban Khao Din, Phitsanulok Province Ban Nong Kong, Buriram Province Wangsomboon, Sakaeo Province Danchai Pattana, Sakaeo Province Ban Krapo Lernglom, Srisaket Province Ko Jan, Chonburi Province Tanon Yai, Lobburi Province Thailand • 3 designated by Nov. 2015 • Many communities under preparation •Very bottom up approach at small village level with experts involvement
- 11. 19 10 11 89 3 10 10 89 10 19 10 11 10 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 China China, Hong Kong China (Province of Taiwan) Vietnam Japan Korea Thailand 152 by Nov. 2015
- 12. International Safety Community Support Centers in Asia Bangladesh: Center for Child and Mother Health Korea: Center for Community Safety Promotion, at Ajou University Medical Center China: Beijing: China Occupational Safety and Health Agency (COSHA) Hong Kong: Occupational Safety and Health Agency Taiwan: Taiwanese Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion Association (TIPSPA) Japan: Japanese Institute for Safe Community (JISC)
- 13. Safe communities in Asian Region Safe Communities in Korea Strategies of Safe Community Programs implementation
- 14. Safe Communities A “Safe Community” can be a: Municipality; a County; a City or a District of a City working with safety promotion, Injury-, Violence- and Suicide- prevention and prevention of the consequences (human injuries) related to Natural Disaster, covering all age groups, gender and areas and is a part of an international network of accredited programs.
- 15. National Government 7 - Metropolitan City 9 - Province 234 - District, County, City Jeju Busan (3.5 M, 16 D) Gwangju (2.5 M, 6D) Suwon (1.2 M), Songpa Wonju, Cheonan, Gwacheon Samcheok, Gangbuk Changwon (1.1 M) National Administration structure
- 16. Population size of SCs in Korea • Busan 3.5 millions • Suwon 1.2 millions • Changwon 1.1 millions • Gwangju 2.5 millions • Songpa 660 thousands • Jeju 610 thousands • Cheonan 600 thousands • Gangbuk 340 thousands • Wonju 330 thousands • Samcheok 72 thousands • Gwacheon 70 thousands
- 17. • Asian Safe Communities • Korea 845,000 • China(HK) 447,000 • Japan 135,000 • China 120,000 • China(Taiwan) 94,000 • Vietnam 13,000 • Thailand 10,000 Population size of Safe Communities • Nordic Safe Communities • Sweden 40,000 • Norway 44,000 • Finland 65,000
- 18. Two major characteristics of SCs in Korea • Top-down approach with strong political leaderships – Political leadership changes influenced a lot to SC programs • High population urbanized metropolitan city – Whole city approach with some model areas or programs – More bureaucratic/difficulties in multi sectors collaboration – Less participation from citizens – Uneasy injury surveillance – Difficult to evaluate SC programs
- 20. Safe communities in Asian Region Safe Communities in Korea Strategies of Safe Community Programs implementation Bottom up ? or Top down ?
- 21. Achievement Time SW Designation Re-designation SP CW CA SC BS GB GC JJ WJ GJ SC GCAS CJ PT YW GJ NG GM Time to Achievement of SC in Korea
- 22. Bottom-up Model Looking for resource Loosely organized Lack of efficiency Less politically influenced Volunteer manpower Residents participation Common consensus Based on community’s needs
- 23. Top-down model Based on Policy Enough budget Well organized Highly efficient Lack of consensus Lack of manpower Residents indifference Continuity not guaranteed
- 25. Bi-directional Approaches: - community participation and multi-sector collaborations with public policies Sustainability