The purpose of this study is to evaluate the differences of recognition of the actual conditions, performances, problems and issues of the Direct Payment Program for Rural Landscape Conservation(DPPRLC) between interest groups who are residents, officials and experts. In the results of this study, there were differences in awareness of DPPRLC depending on interest groups and whether the program participation. It is determined to be caused the limitations of the program that the target district farmers recognised the program as a source of income and seldom act to manage the rural landscape except cultivating "landscape crops". Therefore, the efforts will be demanded to clarify and share the goals, contents of the project. The following measures are proposed in this study for the direction of improvement of DPPRLC: First, the various efforts are needed to overcome the differences on the interest group's recognition for goals, contents, performance of the Direct Payment Program for rural landscape conservation. Second, it is needed to conduct the program based on the rural landscape plan and participant's capabilities. Third, the various programs to attract voluntary participation from residents should be implemented. Forth, it demands the entrusted implementation to professional organizations to support resident's voluntary activities of surveying rural landscape resources, planning rural landscape conservation, execution of village landscape conservation, etc. Fifth, the various programs to strengthen participant's capabilities should be implemented.

The Direct Payment Program for Rural Landscape Conservation (DPPRLC), introduced by the Korean government, currently offers subsidies to rural villages to encourage the growing of flower crops or wild flowers instead of common grain. However, in many of these villages, major landscape elements like walls and roofs of houses are built with cheap, urban materials, and kept in poor condition. This is a poor reflection of the DPPRLC goal to improve the aesthetic of korean rural landscape. This study surveyed and analyzed traditional style walls and roofs in ten selected villages taking part in the DPPRLC program. Villagers were interviewed for a proposed direct payment program for building and maintaining traditional walls and roofs. Major findings are: First, more than 86% of residents are willing to build and maintain traditional walls if subsidies are given. They would like to be reimbursed 75% to 100% of construction and maintenance costs. Second, about 64% of residents would be willing to build and maintain traditional roofs with the subsidies. They also would like to receive 75% to 100% of construction and maintenance costs. The policy implication of this study is that extending the DPPRLC program to include walls and roofs in rural villages will make rural landscape more attractive.

Recently the program of direct payment for rural landscape conservation attracts great interests as it may help disadvantaged rural people. Recognized the effect of the program to improve the rural landscape and economy, it has been suggested that the program of direct payment for rural landscape conservation should be expanded. This paper presents the measures and status of Environmental Stewardship, the direct payment program for landscape conservation in England, as following; 1) rural development policies in UK organized under EU, 2) measures and agreements for rural landscape management, 3) the statues of ES enforcement. We sampled a pilot farm, surveyed inside and outside landscape of the farm, and interviewed local government officers and farmers in order to find policy implication.

The direct payment program for rural landscape conservation in practice since 2005. Recently it is the policy or plan of direct payment for rural landscape conservation attracts great interests as they may help rural people who are very disadvantaged. This paper presents the status of the direct payment program for landscape conservation in rural area and proposed improvements to the program as following; 1) to diversify the plant species, 2) to include other rural elements than plants, 3) to enlarge the areas of crop plantation, 4) to simplify and clarify application process. We sampled two pilot programs, one of spring flower crop and the other of autumn flower crop, and questionnaire surveyed visitors, local government officers and farmers in order to find problems and suggest improvements.