Qualitative study reveals structural pathways for linking forest welfare with social services, highlighting key delivery models and accessibility barriers across vulnerable target groups.
Population aging is increasing demand for social services, and natural environments are increasingly recognized as health-promoting resources. Korea has institutionalized forest welfare as a national service system delivered through public facilities and a certified professional workforce. Its linkage with the statutory social service system nevertheless remains at an early stage, with few implementation frameworks grounded in the perspectives of those who would implement such a linkage. This study addressed that gap through a three-stage qualitative design—exploratory focus group interviews (FGIs), in-depth interviews with nine experts across four strata, and a follow-up FGI—with the data analyzed thematically. Experts converged on three target groups—socially isolated youth, middle-aged adults, and social workers—and showed that accessibility, though raised in every stratum, comprised four distinct barriers: psychological and informational, temporal and economic, organizational, and market-related. Social workers further occupied a dual position as both a channel for service dissemination and a population in need of the service. The resulting framework comprises three operational entities—support, delivery, and supply—across four dimensions: user characteristics, delivery system, service operation, and policy environment. Institutional foundations, target-group-differentiated accessibility, interagency collaboration, and a strengthened private supply base were identified as conditions for integration. By showing how a nationally institutionalized forest welfare system can be linked with statutory social services, the framework offers a reference for nature-based provision in other national contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: