지산열린학원25년 10월 · 21번낙후 지역의 녹지 개선이 오히려 집값을 올려, 혜택을 받아야 할 저소득 주민을 내쫓는 ‘도시 녹지 역설’을 낳는다.
Green improvements in poor areas can raise housing costs and displace the very residents they were meant to benefit — the urban green space paradox.
흐름: 기대 → However → 역설!
☠ 수남의 하수인: 임대료 골렘




| 단어 | 뜻 | 동의어 / 반의어 |
|---|---|---|
| degraded | 낙후된 | = run-down ↔ improved |
| paradox | 역설 | = contradiction |
| desirable | 바람직한, 인기 있는 | = attractive ↔ undesirable |
| afford | ~할 여유가 있다 | = manage to pay |
| displacement | 쫓겨남 | = eviction, removal |
| exclusion | 배제 | ↔ inclusion |




Currently, urban regeneration projects in degraded areas have been promoted as improving the wellbeing of residents and solving environmental injustice problems. However, such environmental improvements in ethnic communities and/or low-income households can create an urban green space paradox. The creation of new, high-quality green spaces can increase attractiveness, making these neighbourhood more desirable. By contrast, the cost of housing can rise, and residents may not be able to afford the rent. This results in the exclusion or displacement of the poor neighbourhood’s residents, who were intended to benefit from the ecosystem services provided by the new green space. In turn, the residents may only be able to afford to live in a similar degraded neighbourhood to the one they left, with low access to green infrastructure.
Green improvements in poor neighborhoods can raise rents and push out the residents they were meant to help.
낙후 지역의 녹지 개선은 임대료를 올려 원래 도우려던 주민들을 내쫓을 수 있다.
원래 시험 정답: ② a situation forcing out city residents green renewals aimed to help
밑줄 친 an urban green space paradox가 의미하는 바로 가장 적절한 것은?
정답 ④ — the cost of housing can rise → exclusion or displacement of… residents, who were intended to benefit.
⚔️ 강신용의 함정: ①은 ‘역설’이란 말만 보고 환경 문제로 오해한 오답.