This chapter examines citizen participation in land-use planning and urban regeneration in Korea, and in particular in Busan. It begins with an analysis of citizen engagement in public affairs at national level and the role of local governments in promoting citizen participation. It underlines how citizens are increasingly at the centre of urban regeneration projects in Korea. The chapters then moves on to analyse citizen participation in urban regeneration projects in Busan. It highlights how the Busan Metropolitan Government encourages residents to be more active in urban regeneration projects and the need to match tools to objectives to facilitate citizen participation. Finally, the chapter explores some options to enhance citizen participation in urban regeneration in Busan.
The Governance of Land Use in Korea
Chapter 3. Citizen participation in land-use planning and urban regeneration in Korea
Abstract
Citizen participation is at the core of national urban regeneration policy
Citizen participation – or citizen engagement – is particularly important for many elements of regional, urban and rural development. “Dialogue between decision makers and local inhabitants is a pre-requisite for sustainable urban development” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 7[1]). Citizens can provide government with valuable information on the state of well-being in their city and even formulate proposals for well-being improvement based on their specific needs (OECD, 2016[2]).
Citizen engagement in land-use planning is also critical to develop a sense of community and avoid resistance or opposition to planning proposals. It may assist government in identifying potential barriers to any given land use which could help authorities work to remove them in advance before a final decision is made. In Korea, like in many other OECD countries, there is a growing willingness on the part of authorities and professional planners to accept input from the public, but most of the tasks in land-use planning involve dealing with conflict. Most of the problem is that in complex planning tasks such as land-use planning, public involvement is seldom extended beyond the public display of the plans and public hearings. In general, governments struggle to find an adequate balance between democratic decision making and scientific expertise (Golobic and Marusic, 2007[3]). The challenge is exacerbated if it is considered that land-use decisions are, for the most part, political ones and technical analysis can only inform political decisions (Susskind, 1981[4]). Moreover, stakeholders normally have different opinions on what use to give to land, and these diverse interests can enormously complicate the straightforward linear rational planning process. The impact of citizen participation in land-use decision making heavily depends on the motives of those who manage and participate in it (Susskind, 1981, p. 199[4]).
Citizen engagement in public affairs is relatively high in Korea
Since the 1990s, Korea has been strengthening the relationship between the government and citizens. The aims have been, like in many other OECD countries, to reinforce public trust in government and public institutions, to respond to citizens’ expectations and show that their views are considered in decision making by government. Public participation helps the government to fully capitalise on the value of engagement and consultation exercises, i.e. using stakeholder input to inform, and hopefully improve, decisions. In Korea, after the Roh Tae-Woo administration (1989-93), the consecutive governments promoted the incorporation of civil society organisations into the policy process. The Roh Moo-Hyun administration (2003-08), for example, declared itself as a “participatory government” and increased the financial support to civil society organisations. Nowadays, civil society in Korea is relatively well developed, and civic engagement in public affairs has been improving over the years (Kim, 2011[5]). A central tenet is the belief that the participation of citizens in policy making will produce better decisions and therefore more efficient benefits for society as a whole. Indeed, as research has shown, “… there are a lot of misunderstandings and conflicts concerning the real aim and usefulness of public participation. The main aim of public participation is to help decision making. If authorities neglect public participation, it may lead to protest movements and actions” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 15[1]).
Korea scored 6.4 (out of 10) for civic engagement in the most recent version of the OECD Better Life Index, a similar level as in the United Kingdom and Canada1. Civic engagement is one dimension of citizen well-being and is a composite indicator based on voter turnout and stakeholder engagement for developing regulations. Voter turnout in Korea scored 77.2% ranking 11 out of 38 countries (OECD, 2016[6]). The formal process for public engagement in developing laws, where Korea ranks 14 out of 38 countries, is one way to measure the extent to which people can become involved in government decisions on key issues that affect their lives. In Korea, the level of stakeholder engagement in developing regulations is 2.4 (on a scale between 0 and 4), in line with OECD average. It is worth pointing out that across OECD countries, only in Korea are younger voters (aged 18-24) more likely to cast their vote than prime age individuals. “Overall interest in politics is an important factor for social cohesion. This constitutes a key challenge for politicians across OECD to ensure that most citizens feel concerned about politics and participate as actors into the political life of the society” (OECD, 2016, p. 130[6]).
It may be argued that civil society in Korea has been an essential element in bringing about and completing the democratisation process (Huttel, 2007[7]). Korea is an electoral democracy with regularly held free and fair elections on the basis of universal suffrage. Civil society organisations in Korea are now agenda setters as they pursue general and public interest activities in areas such as environmental protection, corruption, welfare, and efficient traffic control (Huttel, 2007[7]). As the experience in some Korean cities shows, civil society also participates in urban development issues.
Local governments have a key role in enhancing citizen engagement
All levels of government in Korea now use an array of engagement strategies and means in the agenda setting, formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies. Korean authorities consider that strengthening relations with citizens is a sound investment in better policy making and a core element of good governance. The different experiences across the country have shown that citizen participation in decision and policy making provides citizens some extent of control over the policy process and facilitates policy making and implementation. For government, it increases trust, transparency, accountability and legitimacy. It strengthens the evidence base for policy making avoiding potential litigation costs, reducing implementation costs, and allowing government to benefit from a greater reservoir of experience and information. Indeed, research has shown that “…the response to the urban challenges must take into account the singular configurations of natural, cultural, and socio-political factors, as well as of the historical past and tradition of each city” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 5[1]).
In Korea, “[l]ocal governments have a key role in implementing citizen engagement initiatives. Even in cases when national legislation provides for public participation, decision making in matters concerning urban development should fall within the competence of local governments” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 7[1]). The reason is that they are at the forefront of government service delivery, and their performance affects overall attitudes towards government. In addition, their proximity to the community gives them unique insight into shared challenges and opportunities. They are exposed to high levels of scrutiny but also to higher levels of interaction with both citizens and the private sector. For these reasons, it is not surprising that across OECD countries many of the most advanced and innovative engagement practices are taking place at the level of municipalities. For instance, the project “Citizen Powered City”, implemented jointly by the OECD and Governance International, has collected more than 50 case studies of how public service organisations, in particular at the local level, harness the skills, capabilities and energy of citizens to achieve better outcomes.2
Effective citizen engagement can yield a number of benefits, including building trust in government, generating better outcomes at lower cost, securing higher compliance levels with decisions reached, enhancing equity of access to public policy making and services, leveraging knowledge and resources, and developing innovative solutions. Citizen engagement has different stages, and it may be argued that Korea is in the third stage as it is empowering citizens to take active part in urban regeneration projects (Box 3.1).
Korea, as a whole, is transitioning from a too structured and static form of public participation to participatory planning with a less static process, where mediation becomes very important. Through effective public participation, the community benefits from improved social infrastructure and stability of the community. There is also a better relationship between government and the community and economic prospects for all sides improve. Experience in OECD cities has shown that without citizen participation there could be some expensive planning mistakes.3
Box 3.1. Different stages of citizen engagement in policy making
According to OECD research and literature, there are three main stages of citizen engagement that can be identified:
Citizen information: This refers to the provision of information from the government to the public through ICT or granting access to government data. Although this could help build citizens’ trust in government, they are not invited to provide any feedback or make any proposal to government.
Citizen consultation: This is a two-way relationship between government and citizens. Government provides information to citizens and they, in turn, are welcome to contribute their views, opinions, and feedback to government for consideration in policy making and decision making. Examples include public opinion surveys, focus groups, workshops/seminars, public hearings and public comment on draft legislation.
Citizen participation and empowerment: This refers to a two-way dialogue between citizens and government. Citizens are empowered to discuss and generate policy options in partnership with government. Examples of participatory decision making and participatory budgeting include citizen juries and citizen forums.
Source: adapted from OECD (2015), Governing the City, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226500-en.
Citizens are increasingly at the centre of urban regeneration projects
Urban regeneration has become a national socio-economic development priority for Korea. The Special Act on the Promotion of and Support for Urban Regeneration aims to create competitive cities for the well-being of people (Korean Government, 2016[8]). One of its main goals is to empower local residents in that they can take the lead in resolving the issues of their neighbourhood and join the participatory local governance (Park, 2014[9]). For this reason, building a governance system is a mandatory process for the urban regeneration based on the Special Act. Urban renewal is not a new policy for Korea as in 2009 the government passed the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (Korean Government, 2009[10]). However, a critical difference of the new Act is that public officials and experts should encourage private citizens to take the lead by helping local residents establish and implement urban regeneration plans for their city (Yoo and Jung, 2014[11]).
Under the urban regeneration plans, residents and local governments are in charge of jointly planning and implementing the projects. The central government’s role, on the other hand, is to provide support through means such as financial aid and system reforms as well as feasibility studies of the investments. This reflects a change in approach in Korea as past urban renewal projects have been implemented based on profitability rather than their potential for contributing to the public good and well-being of citizens. The experience of OECD countries suggests that local governments have a key role in implementing citizen engagement initiatives (OECD, 2016[2]). In fact, “sustainable urban development needs a number of changes in attitude and approach on the part of local authorities, urban planners and the local population” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 14[1]).
The Special Act on the Promotion of and Support for Urban Regeneration states that urban regeneration plans should be established by the head of local governments based on resident participation. Moreover, cities must build the Urban Regeneration Master Plan incorporating citizens’ views. The Metropolitan Urban Plans and the Do Comprehensive Plans, as well as the Urban Master Plans, are prepared in consultation with citizens (See Chapter 1). In Busan, panels are organised for this purpose where ordinary people and experts take part.
Urban regeneration planning is divided into a) strategic planning, which covers the basic direction, and b) activation planning, which deals with the actual implementation (Park, 2014[9]). The OECD recommendation on Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government emphasises the need to involve stakeholders in needs assessment and the design of an investment strategy at an early stage of the investment cycle (OECD, 2014[12]). Urban Regeneration Master Plans, or the implementation plans, can be divided into economy-based and community-based plans depending on the regional conditions and traits. The objective of economy-based urban regeneration plans is to introduce new economic functions to expand employment opportunities and distribute economic recovery effects to surrounding areas. On the other hand, community-based urban regeneration plans aim to promote local businesses and traits to revive sluggish downtowns and commercial areas and to maintain local communities by improving the poor living conditions of deteriorating areas (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Types of urban regeneration planning
Source: Based on (Lee, 2014[13]), “Urban Regeneration: Two-Pronged Project”, Space and Environment, Vol. 60, pp. 6-10.
Under the current urban regeneration planning framework, engagement and consultation take on greater relevance because: i) urban planning and regeneration projects are closer to the needs and priorities of citizens, and ii) it allows the right stakeholders to be brought onboard. The experience of OECD countries suggests that better understanding the particular dynamics of different policy sectors (e.g. water, health, education or investment), specifically in terms of stakeholders, accountability needs and risks and impact on people’s lives, results in the setting of a better tailored and more relevant scene for engagement (OECD, 2016[2]).
UNESCO’s experience throughout the world over the past 50 years has shown that when a site loses the involvement of its community, its conservation problems are worsened. In many cases, regulations intended to protect and preserve historic urban centres have often dispossessed local inhabitants of their ancestral homes to establish them as tourist attractions. Yet without its inhabitants, its social community and neighbourhood life, the site loses all affinity with the collective memory (Enyedi, 2004, p. 5[1]).
Partnering with citizens in service delivery
The different approaches used for citizen engagement in Korea reflect that government is increasingly partnering with citizens for service delivery and meeting other needs such as improving well-being. Korea, like many other OECD countries, is using user-centred collaborative approaches in service delivery (also referred to as “co-production”) where citizens or service users design, commission, deliver or evaluate a public service in partnership with service professionals. In co-production, because users may at times take responsibility over the initiative for service development, the line between service delivery and policy making can sometimes become blurred.
In a time of increased budgetary pressure and growing demand for public services, these approaches can be a source of innovation leading to greater individual and community empowerment, increased user satisfaction and reduced production costs. The results of an OECD survey on service delivery indicate that for the majority of OECD countries that have adopted some forms of co-production, the objectives are primarily to increase the involvement of citizens (71%) and achieve better quality service delivery (60%) rather than to reduce costs (23%). For Korea, the reasons for partnering with citizens may be to improve the effectiveness of outcomes, improve service quality, and increase the involvement of citizens.
Figure 3.1. Reasons for partnering with citizens in public service delivery (2010)
Notes: 2010 OECD Survey on Innovation in Public Services.
Source: OECD (2011[14]), Government at a Glance 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2011-en.
However, governments face several barriers to adopting co-production as a means of service delivery. A shortage of resources (42%), organisational resistance to change (36%), and lack of financial incentives (31%) are the most frequent obstacles identified by government officials. For Korea, the lack of professionals with the knowledge and skills for co-production, organisational resistance and the lack of financial incentives may be among the most important obstacles to stronger participatory practices. At local level the lack of resources may be an additional element that prevents government from undertaking participatory mechanisms and strengthening citizen engagement.
Figure 3.2. Barriers to partnering with citizens in public services delivery (2010)
Note: 2010 OECD Survey on Innovation in Public Services.
Source: OECD (2011[14]), Government at a Glance 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2011-en.
Busan’s residents are relatively active in urban regeneration
Busan pursues strong and inclusive urban regeneration strategies. At the heart of this vision lies the ability of the government to design and deliver policies and services that better reflect and meet the needs and preferences of the whole society, including those of the vulnerable communities, in particular the elderly and young people. That is the spirit behind the city’s urban regeneration strategies.
Citizen participation in larger regeneration projects is a one-way activity
Urban regeneration projects under the economy-based plan focus on establishing a sustainable economic structure, revitalising the local economy and creating quality jobs. There may be a focus on transparency which implies that Busan may understand citizen engagement mostly as a one-way relationship, whereby the metropolitan government, like in the rest of the country, produces and delivers information to citizens through information meetings, public hearings etc. Information is provided upon the demand of citizens or, more frequently, government disseminates information to citizens. The experience of OECD countries suggests that “consultation most frequently happens in the later stages of policy development, reducing the flexibility to shift course or reshape the policy” (OECD, 2016[2]). This means that Busan authorities may not be fully capitalising on the opportunity provided by citizen engagement, especially in terms of collecting inputs at all stages of the project formulation.
In other instances, government defines the issues on which citizens’ views are sought. However, the communication between government and citizens is sometimes indirect. For example, the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (HUG) funds a number of urban regeneration programmes and consults with residents but via experts to check the visibility and feasibility of the project. For some projects, public hearings are organised to inform and collect residents’ opinion, but participation is limited as only housewives and elderly people attend due to the timing of the meetings. Young people, when they attend, find it hard to express their opinions in formal meetings as they do not want to contradict their elders, which is a cultural aspect.4
OECD studies show that …
…almost 80% of OECD countries focus their open government agendas on public consultation while less than 50% are engaging with stakeholders in the design and delivery of public services. This means that countries are not fully capitalising on the opportunity provided by citizen engagement, especially in terms of harvesting people’s inputs into the policy cycle at the crucial stages of priority setting and in the definition of policy responses and related public services (OECD, 2016[2]).
Moreover, local governments and public servants have no experience around citizen participation. According to the information gathered for this study, the priority of local public servants is, for most of the time, to get the job done quickly and in the easiest way possible. Participation is just a tick in a box, but there is no real participation.5 In some cases, meetings with residents are simply a way to cover a requirement to gain access to subsidies. It is worth pointing out that 5% of the subsidy goes towards financing citizen participation.6
Busan Metropolitan Government encourages residents to be more active in urban regeneration
Like in many other cities in Korea, Busan is implementing a community-based approach to its urban regeneration projects at neighbourhood level. This interaction is based on partnership between citizens and government. The reason may be that planners have a limited knowledge of local problems, and statistical data on urban issues and problems cannot express exactly how local people feel about them or how the suggested solutions fit into their cultural traditions. The adoption of this approach is in line with the practices in other OECD countries. For instance, Australia has found out that top-down blue prints for city growth are less effective because they tend to be overtaken by changing circumstances. In this sense, effective metropolitan planning needs to be underpinned by adaptable governance arrangements that engage stakeholders in the decision-making process and implementation (Kelly, 2010[15]).
There is evidence that opportunities for tailored engagement on issues that matter directly to people’s lives are on the rise in Busan, as in the rest of the country, especially through the community-based scheme. Under a community-based activation plan, Korean citizens propose policy options or urban regeneration options and shape the dialogue with the local authorities, although the responsibility for final decisions rests with the local government. This is a way of recognising the capacity of citizens to discuss and generate urban regeneration project proposals independently. It requires government to ensure that project proposals generated will be seriously taken into account. Urban regeneration experiences such as the Gamcheon Cultural Village (Box 3.2) have the potential to transform a dilapidated and impoverished area into a cultural and tourist destination. Busan Metropolitan Government focuses on small villages to encourage residents to identify the real problems and come up with ideas for improvements such as small enterprises. Residents are encouraged to participate from early in the planning process through to the implementation stage. The Gamcheon Cultural Village is an example of urban regeneration led by citizens with a few dedicated artists acting as activists or facilitators. Any resident in the village can explore projects they would like to undertake according to their needs and get expert opinions until the implementation stage. However, it is now the local government that runs the project to expand the business model. It must be stated that urban regeneration projects in Busan led by the metropolitan government follow a different governance structure and procedures from those of the Special Act on Urban Regeneration. Differences can be found in the composition of implementation teams, establishment of assistance centres, set up of consultative bodies for residents and businesses, and organisation and operation of urban regeneration consultative bodies (see Chapter 2). This is because at national level the Special Committee on Urban Regeneration sets national priorities, whereas the Local Urban Regeneration Committee defines major urban regeneration policies for its territory.
Box 3.2. Gamcheon Culture Village – a successful community-based urban regeneration project
Gamcheon Culture Village is located in Gamcheon-dong, Saha-gu in Busan Metropolitan City. In the 1950s, Taegeukdo devotees and Korean War refugees gathered to form the town. In the past, the region had a reputation as having fallen behind with its development under the name of Taegeukdo Village. At the end of the 20th century, Gamcheon region was gradually becoming a slum; people were leaving the town due to new city development and industrialisation, and the number of vacant houses was rapidly increasing.
In 2009, Gamcheon Culture Village began to transform itself through art projects. Currently, wall paintings and sculptures are displayed all over the village. Through a series of projects, including the Dreaming Machu Picchu project in 2009, the Miromiro Alley project in 2010, the Sanbokdoro Renaissance project in 2011, and the Twice the Pleasure project in 2012, the village was transformed to its current shape. The village came to be known as Gamcheon Culture Village as small cafes and shops opened in the village. The village’s selection for the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism’s village art promotion project in 2009 was a key moment for Gamcheon Culture Village. Following the selection, artists and residents in the Busan area who lived in Gamcheon Culture Village collaborated to revitalise the region by harmonising the existing facilities as part of an urban reconstruction project.
The village has been awarded several prizes for its success in urban regeneration, most recently the International Award “UCLG-MEXICO CITY-Culture21” as a leading city for its contribution to culture and sustainable cities.
Sources: Kim, Hong and Lee (2017[16]), Plans for Solving Problems of Residents of Gamcheon Culture Village with Design Thinking, International Journal of u-and e-Service, Vol. 10 No.6 pp.115-122, 10.14257/ijunesst.2017.10.6.11; Busan City News (2018[17]) Gamcheon Culture Village Recognized for its Successful Urban Regeneration Project, https://hapskorea.com/gamcheon-culture-village-recognized-for-its-successful-urban-regeneration-project/.
There are three main actors in the participatory process: residents (including the private sector), the administration, and experts (master-coordinator, head of the Urban Regeneration Support Centres, and local activists). Their degree of involvement depends on the type of project and the circumstances. The role of the activists is very important because they facilitate the communication between government and residents, provide direction and ideas to citizens and may have a vision for the project. At the moment, the process is still top down and changing to a resident-driven bottom up process. In the future, it is expected that the participation process will evolve to include horizontal multi-directional communication in decision-making. The role of the expert will evolve into that of a facilitator rather than a decision maker. The experience of Seoul Metropolitan Government in urban regeneration shows that, to a large extent, the key to success depends on active civic participation and co-operation between government and experts (Choi, 2017[18]).
The community-based approach for urban regeneration plans has several key features:
Take a neighbourhood-level approach. Local communities become more important because they provide members a sense of belonging and identity. Such communities provide channels for residents’ participation and governance. They are the most efficient unit that has the potential to contribute to enhancing the quality of people’s lives to the point where people can actually feel the positive changes (Lee, 2014[13]).
Encourage the participation of diverse groups and individuals. The active participation of the various stakeholders in a community makes it possible to comprehensively diagnose the problems in the community. Their concerns and understanding of their community are the basis for identifying the current issues and envisioning the future of the neighbourhood (Lee, 2014[13]). To be successful, it is important that these projects ensure that no particular stakeholder is excluded from the project. This ensures the viability of the project and the sustainability of the community.
Make comprehensive improvements to soft and hard frameworks. These projects create an environment in which residents possess a sense of ownership and participate fully in solving the problems within the community. In order to do so, a “soft” framework consisting of an operational organisation, financing system, co-operation system, and a set of ordinances is established. At the same time, improvements are made to the quality of the “hard” framework, the physical environment such as roads, parks, houses and commercial buildings (Lee, 2014[13]).
A long-term community vision. For urban regeneration plans to succeed, it is crucial to establish a long-term vision shared by all community members and to conduct individual action plans continuously and in stages from a macro perspective (Lee, 2014[13]). Mutual understanding and co-operation among the different stakeholders are essential.
Busan follows a territorial fragmentation of dialogues
The community-based approach for urban regeneration plans allows Busan to design a territorial framework of public participation. The reason is that the problems to be solved or the development projects usually concern only a part of the city. The effects of a new investment should be clearly put on the map to identify the competent authorities and the local inhabitants who will be affected and therefore should be involved in the decision-making process. This is the case in Gamcheon Cultural Village and the Sambok mountains road regeneration projects.
Experience shows that “ [u]rban renewal and spatial segregation involve only a few blocks, in this case neighbourhood units are the most convenient spatial frameworks” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 19[1]). It also demonstrates that it is more complicated to organise public participation on a metropolitan level. In the rapidly growing metropolises, metropolitan governance has to face new tasks, from land-use planning to urban public transport and social housing, tasks which frequently remain outside the traditional regulatory framework.
According to Enyedi (2004[1]), across the world
…the “public” is not a homogeneous group of people. It is composed of ordinary citizens with diverse cultural, educational, political and socio-economic characteristics. They also have different and at times competing interests. Consequently, the appropriate and necessary level of participation of the different “publics” may vary and could range from simple provision of information in some cases to more active involvement and even self-determination in others (Enyedi, 2004, pp. 21-22[1]).
Box 3.3. Formal and informal types of public participation
Public participation may be formal when it refers to the act of informing citizens about planning intentions and investment projects and getting their opinion and views. Examples of formal participation could be: i) public meetings of local authority organisations (e.g. town council), ii) obligation to inform the public in good time about major planning projects at the local authority level, iii) opinion polls, and iv) involvement of informed members of the public in the work of committees.
Public participation may also be informal, which lacks decision-making power. Its importance resides in the hope that informed and sound debates will be persuasive enough to impact decision making. Examples of informal public participation include municipal forums, round table discussions, future prospects workshops, focal referenda, public expert reports, research workshops, etc.
Source: adapted from Enyedi (2004[1]), Public participation in socially sustainable urban development, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001355/135555eo.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2018).
Matching tools to objectives to facilitate citizen participation
Busan authorities have a number of tools to promote and facilitate citizen engagement in urban development. Across OECD countries,“[n]ational and sub-national governments tend to use different forms of citizen engagement, to do so at different moments within policy cycles and to employ methods, which can range from national referenda to town hall meetings” (OECD, 2016, p. 18[2]). On land-use planning, for instance, most of the existing participatory planning approaches rely either on public opinion surveys or on workshop techniques, but each method has its own strengths and weaknesses, which mainly depend on the problem situation (Golobic and Marusic, 2007[3]). The use of the tools depends on the objectives pursued and the target group. For instance, when Busan Metropolitan Government engages in the active provision of information it produces reports, brochures and leaflets. It may also use different delivery mechanisms which may be either direct (e.g. information centres) or indirect (e.g. media coverage, civil society organisations as intermediaries). Most of the models of public participation are designed for a few dozen people. Clearly, only a few of the city’s inhabitants can take part. Hence, great care must be taken in selecting participants in order to avoid subsequent claims of manipulation.
When Busan Metropolitan Government seeks feedback on policy issues or urban development projects from a broad range of citizens, it uses tools for consultation that provide a greater level of interaction such as public hearings, citizens’ panels, workshops, etc. However, according to the interviews held by the OECD secretariat in Busan, these instruments are not frequently used. Following national guidance, Busan Metropolitan Government is engaging citizens in more active participation in urban regeneration, thus it has used tools that facilitate learning, debate and the drafting of concrete proposals such as citizens’ forums and citizens’ juries. In Busan, like in other Korean cities, there are urban regeneration support centres that provide capacity building programmes on urban regeneration for local citizens.
OECD research suggests “[t]here is an opportunity to fully tap into new technologies and the possible approaches that arise from them (e.g. social media, mobile government or open data) to better align engagement with the rapid pace of policy making. While this insight is not new, comparative analysis suggests that more can be done” (OECD, 2016, p. 19[2]). ICT is also used as a tool to bring the administration and citizens on line. There is an increasing amount of information on-line regarding the vision of urban development and urban regeneration projects, although the quantity, quality and range varies greatly. ICT is also helping to make consultation easier, mostly for the younger generations as they find it easier to provide their views on line. There is no evidence, however, on the use of online tools in Busan to actively engage citizens in online discussion groups to discuss urban regeneration programmes or for them to come up with a joint solution to a neighbourhood’s problem.
Enhancing citizen participation in urban regeneration
Korean citizens in general, and Busan residents in particular, are increasingly demanding and seeking opportunities to participate actively in shaping the future of their city and neighbourhoods. In response, Korean authorities at national and local level have adopted ways to include citizens and civil society organisations in policy making. Examples of successful citizen engagement in urban regeneration projects can be observed in different parts of the country (see Chapter 2).
Conduct ex ante planning to engage citizens in land-use planning and urban regeneration projects
One of the key lessons from international experience in engaging citizens in policy making is the need to conduct ex ante planning. The experience of Chile through its programme for recovering disadvantaged neighbourhoods epitomises this case. In Valparaíso, actively partnering with community residents led to programme outcomes reflective of citizens’ needs, desires and aspirations, more appropriate prioritisation of action and funds, more efficient use of resources and, ultimately, more effective policy making (Box 3.4).
Box 3.4. Community involvement in Chile’s neighbourhood recovery programme: Quiero mi Barrio
In 2006, Chile’s Ministry of Housing and Urbanism (MINVU) launched the national programme Recuperación de Barrios: Quiero mi Barrio, aimed at recovering disadvantaged neighbourhoods. National and regional government authorities in Valparaíso, noticed that when community leaders did not conduct inclusive ex ante planning, the programme had poor results. However, when communities conducted planning based on strong ex ante participation among a wide range of stakeholders, results tended to be positive.
Source: adapted from OECD (2017[19]), Making Decentralisation Work in Chile: Towards Stronger Municipalities, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279049-en.
In order to ensure that engagement does not simply occur when a problem is perceived, more effort may be needed to listen to citizens’ opinions. This can mean improving communication at the early stages of planning so that urban projects or development programmes do not reach the “threat” stage. One way to do so is by bringing relevant stakeholders into the process early on. This is certainly antithetical to the current multi-level governance structure as it can put government plans at risk regarding large regeneration efforts or infrastructure projects. However, it can also better support trust and avoid incurring unnecessary costs of “undoing” a project very late in the process if citizen influence is strong enough.
Moreover, it would be necessary that Busan authorities guarantee the involvement of citizens in the land-use planning process and that they connect local existing knowledge with scientific evidence. Busan needs to use local knowledge as an input for an interactive participative planning process, where conflicts, if they exist, are resolved in a communicative and consensual way. The challenge is to establish a common language between citizens and planners. For this, Busan Metropolitan Government may wish to consider the experience of Komenda, a municipality in the metropolitan area of Ljubljana, Slovenia, which acquired people’s knowledge through questionnaires and transformed it into suitability models. Computer models proved effective in in focusing the debate and helping to get constructive and creative results (Golobic and Marusic, 2007[3]).The reason is that land-use planners spend a lot of time finding alternatives, forecasting impacts, and weighing costs and benefits, and although these are partly technical tasks they require value judgements (Susskind, 1981[4]). Government must present citizens with different alternatives as that helps to mediate conflict. “Effective citizen participation [in land-use planning and urban regeneration projects] must move toward the ideal of consensus building” (Susskind, 1981, p. 199[4]). Consensus building puts the land-use planner in a mediator role and its success depends on the ability of the planner to bring all the parties to the bargaining table to develop a shared commitment. Consensus building is extraordinarily difficult, but it underlines the importance of value judgements in land-use planning and helps to justify the resolution on any land use approved.
The comprehensive use of lay knowledge requires that government organisations be transparent about what they do and responsive to what citizens tell them. It also means that a government needs to shift its perspective about the relationship between citizens and public policy, from one where citizens are the recipients (objects) of public policy to one where citizens are the reason for – or focal point (subject) – of the policy. This can mean a significant amount of cultural change in a government organisation. Centres of expertise on citizen engagement can promote a supportive engagement culture, better institutionalise citizen engagement practices, and serve as a useful resource for decision makers.
Invest in evaluating the outcome of citizen engagement strategies
Despite progress, one of the main weaknesses of the citizen engagement strategies/practices in Busan is the lack of evaluation of the government’s actions to enhance citizen participation in urban regeneration. Busan needs to: i) evaluate, in a systematic way, the effectiveness of public participation exercises; and ii) develop the tools and capacity to evaluate its performance in providing information, conducting consultation and engaging citizens in order to adapt to new requirements and changing conditions. There seems to be an imbalance between the amount of time, money and energy that authorities invest in engaging with citizens and civil society organisations and the amount of attention they pay to evaluating the effectiveness and impact of such efforts.
The question for Busan Metropolitan Government is how to construct stronger channels for constructive citizen engagement within the current framework of participation. Part of the answer may lie in the potential for learning provided by the evaluation of the current schemes of public participation in urban regeneration projects. Some elements Busan authorities may consider are:
The specific objective pursued through engagement needs to be clearly defined from the outset. In this way, the most appropriate mechanism can be considered, rather than defaulting to a standard approach.
The effectiveness of engagement initiatives relies on their relevance, both in terms of the scope of the policy issue at hand and the representativeness of the social groups and stakeholders involved.
For engagement and consultation to have a policy impact there must be an explicit link between the results of engagement and how they feed into the policy process.
Busan authorities may also consider assessing the impact of the engagement practices in urban regeneration projects, both at the level of output and process measures and the improvement of outcomes. “A focus on understanding the costs and benefits of engagement, in terms not only of the process but also of its results, today and in the future, can further assist local policy makers in deciding when and how engagement can be best applied to support decision making” (OECD, 2016[2]).
According to Frewer and Rowe (2005, p. 102[20]), in order to control the quality of evaluation, this should be done so that different evaluations are comparable across time and across exercises. It is also essential that the evaluation of the exercise be commissioned at the same time as the exercise itself, to permit evaluation of the development of the exercise. Evaluation against validated criteria is essential if the public participation exercise is to be taken seriously by participants and is to form the platform from which public opinion can be incorporated into policy processes. Failure to evaluate may result in cynicism on the part of both participants and external observers as to the merits and utility of the exercise. And once again, in addition, policy impact should be assessed. The results of both exercise and policy impact evaluations should be fed back to both participants and the general public, as it is the difference that the exercise makes to policy outcomes that may increase public confidence in the policy process.
Evaluation of the citizen engagement process is one of the OECD Guiding Principles for Successful Information, Consultation and Active Participation in Policy Making. It calls for the collection of data on key aspects of the participation initiatives, development of appropriate tools for evaluation, and engagement of citizens themselves in evaluating government’s efforts to reinforce government-citizen relations.
Even the European Commission has undertaken an evaluation of its consultation practices. The exercise has underscored some lessons for improvement of the process itself and new opportunities for the general public to participate actively in consultation processes. The results were included in a Better Regulation Package adopted by the European Commission (Box 3.5). This experience provides Busan authorities with a methodology for evaluation of participatory practices and shows the benefits of conducting such exercises, such as continuous improvements. Busan authorities need to have an understanding of who participates (e.g. willing and able, willing and unable, and unwilling) and what factors may be influencing participation. Better data on who participates in engagement is required. This would include information on whether it is citizens, organisations, or both that participate in engagement, as well as data on location and other social indicators, including participants’ education and income levels. NGOs in Busan could monitor the performance of public participation processes.
OECD research has concluded that countries need to invest more in assessing, where possible, the impact and cost-effectiveness of engagement practices.
Evaluating engagement practices is closely linked to the importance of keeping engagement flexible. Strategic choices about which engagement mechanisms to choose depend on places, times, objectives, stages of the policy cycle, etc., and they can be informed by monitoring and the outcomes of evaluation. As a result, governments can make choices that are better and more tailored to the specific needs of each context and the scope of the policy decisions at hand. In addition, more information on implementation and impact would provide policy makers with insightful information to better design engagement efforts to ensure that better policies are created through engagement, leading to greater public value (OECD, 2016, p. 20[2]).
Box 3.5. European Commission evaluation of its consultation practices (2012)
The 2012 review of the European Commission’s consultation policy is a comprehensive report that addresses issues such as the openness and reach of consultation and the use of input received during consultation. It provides indicators concerning the Commission’s consultation practices such as: the type of consultation, consultation tools, languages and length, and the availability of consultation outputs. The report also provides recommendations to improve the quality of consultation, for example:
Adjusting the minimum standards
Improving planning, for example by publishing a rolling calendar of planned consultations online
Improving follow-up and feedback, for example through developing alert systems to notify respondents at key stages throughout the policy-making cycle.
In 2015, the European Commission’s consultation practices were further refined by including new opportunities for the general public to participate in consultations. Reforms also included new methods of engaging stakeholders in the ex post evaluation of regulations.
Source: adapted from OECD (2014[21]), OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation; European Commission (2015[22]) Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2019).
Clarify accountability issues in urban regeneration plans
Engaging individual citizens and civil society organisations as partners in the design and execution of urban regeneration plans is supposed to lead to higher citizen satisfaction and, potentially, cost reductions for the public sector. Re-balancing the partnership between government, individuals and communities in urban regeneration will require further assessment – not least in order to quantify the potential savings and assess any unintended consequences whereby costs and accountability are shifted onto users and citizens. Business cases would need to be developed, based on the broader concept of value for money.
Collaborating with citizens may generate accountability challenges. “Engaging citizens and the third sector (i.e. non-profit organisations) as partners in urban regeneration allows for a shift in power between local government and citizens. This challenges existing organisational values and practices in the public sector, and has real implications for accountability” (OECD, 2011, p. 12[23]). Another important issue to keep in mind is that the people involved in the urban regeneration project should be representative of the community or neighbourhood where the project is taking place.
Improve the environment for effective citizen participation
A key challenge for Busan, as it is for Korea as a whole, is to improve the environment of citizen participation to make it more conducive and supportive. “Immediate strategies include the reduction of physical and informational barriers to participation, coupled with the enhancement of the capacity, skills and knowledge of citizens to be able to contribute meaningfully to policy deliberations and actions” (Kim, 2011, p. 89[5]). In this case, Busan may want to “…increase opportunities for engagement; gain a better understanding who participates; enhance the focus on evaluating the quality of outputs and outcomes (i.e. cost benefit analysis); and … broaden the scope and scale of engagement efforts” (OECD, 2016, p. 4[2]). Moreover, in a quest to increase the participation of men and women from different socio-economic backgrounds, having a wider range of policy objectives may be considered (OECD, 2016[2]). Factors that matter in providing enabling conditions for effective engagement include political and cultural attitudes, supporting legislative frameworks, and adequate institutional co-ordination mechanisms, capacities and incentives. It is important for Busan authorities to continue raising confidence among stakeholders that their input will be used in policy making or the definition of urban regeneration projects; failing to do so may discourage them from engaging in future exercises. Participatory approaches should become the driving force of urban management. If the inhabitants are to become the guardians of their city, they must be given the means to learn about and appropriate their city. It is of the utmost importance to clarify beforehand how the “success” of participation will be measured, by whom and on the basis of what objectives (Enyedi, 2004, p. 18[1]).
The experience of the city of Suwon provides an excellent example of how a city can cultivate residents’ engagement to instigate local changes, building on individuals’ abilities and motivations, in this case to reduce emissions (Box 3.6). This is the kind of engagement that cities must nurture if they want to receive the community support and buy-in they need to implement changes. Suwon’s EcoMobility Festival was successful because it relied on multi-stakeholder arrangements and support from city residents through the creation of the Resident Committee for EcoMobility Promotion and the Citizen Volunteer Corps. The project also demonstrated the potential of collaboration across institutions from different levels of government (Babinard, 2018[24]). Research has shown that “[u]rban planning and development require an accurate political organisation, involving the participation of actors at different levels, with a real distribution of responsibilities for the elaboration and the management of urban policies” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 5[1]).
Box 3.6. Engagement of citizens in promoting environmentally friendly public transport: the case of Suwon
Like many other cities in the world, the city of Suwon in Korea encouraged the use of cars in the past. To change this mobility pattern, officials decided to ensure residents could be directly involved in the design and implementation of its urban transport strategy. Thanks to active citizen participation, Suwon now has a socially and environmentally sustainable transport system that reflects citizens’ mobility needs. One example of this new approach to mobility was the launch of the EcoMobility Festival in 2013 and its commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 2030. As part of the initiative, the city government pioneered the concept of “barrier-free” mobility by seeking to remove obstacles that could limit the physical accessibility and mobility of residents. It introduced wider walkways, smooth walking surfaces, curb cuts and ramps.
The EcoMobility concept helped to establish a hierarchy of urban transport modes. During the festival, the city launched a month-long car-free campaign, which led over 4 300 residents of the Haenggung-dong district to leave their vehicles at home and shift instead to cycling and walking. The municipal government invested in infrastructure works to make the city more walkable by creating sidewalks, repaving roads, and renovating public facilities.
The festival helped to change residents’ perception of what makes a city liveable and raised awareness about the importance of more environmentally friendly transport modes and urban infrastructure. At a national level, the positive impact of the project on the urban environment was recognised by the 2013 Korean Cityscape Grand Award sponsored by the Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT).
Source: (Babinard, 2018[24]), Sustainable mobility and citizen engagement: Korea shows the way, Transport for Development, http://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/sustainable-mobility-and-citizen-engagement-korea-shows-way (accessed 31 July 2018).
The national government, through the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT), may draft a guiding document on how cities can promote citizen participation in urban development projects. Across OECD countries, it is common for national ministries to have an overarching document (e.g. a strategy, policy, law, internal directive, guide, manual, etc.) that within the framework of a broader topic includes specific guidance on how to promote citizen engagement. “Making it relevant to stakeholders matters, and it serves to overcome barriers to participation” (OECD, 2016[2]). An approach MOLIT may consider while drafting guidance to promote citizen participation in urban development and regeneration is the Japanese Machi-zukuri (Box 3.7). Under this inter-community dialogue and community-government engagement, decentralisation and citizen participation are fundamental underpinnings of planning. This approach emphasises a bottom-up process and neighbourhood planning. There is a re-evaluation of the individuality of local areas. Participants are largely self-selected, especially during the initial development phase (Evans, 2010[25]).
Box 3.7. Machi-zukuri – the Japanese urban planning approach
Machi-zukuri is the Japanese urban planning approach by which local residents co-operate with the local government to improve the quality of life in their neighbourhood. This approach aims to create community unity, a multi-social sector network, and to facilitate involvement in government decision making. It uses several participatory tools and techniques, such as town meetings, deliberations, consensus building, negotiation, information and opinion sharing, and local leadership. This approach seeks to achieve a balance between the “soft” aspects of planning, such as fostering local identity and community spirit, and the more traditional focus on planning for roads and other physical infrastructure.
Source: (Evans, 2010[25]), “Machi-zukuri as a new paradigm in Japanese urban planning: reality or myth?”, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0955580022000008745org/10.1080/0955580022000008745; (Fletcher, 2016[26]), Machizukuri, https://participedia.net/en/methods/machizukuri (accessed 6 August 2018).
The experience of Vancouver, Canada, on citizen engagement stresses the importance of having a co-operative attitude to governance which should include citizens and civil society organisations. The difference between Vancouver and Busan is that while Vancouver has a more participatory process to discuss urban regeneration projects prepared by government, Busan encourages citizens to make the proposals themselves (Box 3.8). Nevertheless, Busan may learn from the Vancouver experience that it is always necessary to explain to citizens the pros and cons of different decisions and the consequences of different proposals. The important issue is that citizens should perceive the final decision as theirs. Sustainable urban development depends to a very large extent on whether the public’s encounter with democracy at the local level is a stimulating and satisfactory experience. “Managing social transformations in cities should become a process of expanding people’s capabilities and entitlements, of enlarging the range of choices” (Enyedi, 2004, p. 5[1]).
Box 3.8. Citizen participation in urban planning in Metro Vancouver
In the metropolitan area of Vancouver (Metro Vancouver), the development vision has evolved due to the strong participation of citizens in urban planning over four decades. This has allowed for the consolidation of Vancouver’s urban development principles such as transport choice, green areas and other elements despite changes in government. Public engagement has been critical to developing a well-supported vision and plan for the city and the region. Government presents citizens with several urban development options along with their respective pros and cons. The premise was that there was no right or wrong answer, just different outcomes. This kind of engagement led, for instance, to agreement to build more housing choice in lower density neighbourhoods.
In Vancouver there is a strong political culture that the 22 local governments should work together. Municipalities are responsible for applying the regional plan in a way that they feel best meets their particular needs and development goals. Engagement with NGOs, civic groups, and businesses is an integral part of the co-operative governance practice in the region.
Source: adapted from Kelly (2010[15]), Cities: Who Decides?, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/052_cities_who_decides.pdf (accessed 25 May 2018).
To contribute to an environment of effective citizen participation, local authorities in Busan could: i) supplement formal public processes with regular, informal and transparent dialogues and interaction with their constituents through which the local politician informs and is informed by the public on matters of mutual concern; ii) use a variety of communication tools in order to reach as many people as possible in the neighbourhood and evaluate the effectiveness of each tool; iii) conduct public business in scheduled and publicised open public forums, including forums within communities and neighbourhoods; iv) promote a culture of debate with a language and vocabulary that are understandable to people from different backgrounds; and v) give feedback and inform people how their contributions are affecting the decision-making process. The experience of the City of Surrey in the metropolitan area of Vancouver, Canada, provides useful practical lessons on how to promote civic engagement and maintain high levels of credibility (Box 3.9).
Box 3.9. Lessons from Surrey, Canada, on promoting civic engagement
The city of Surrey, in the metropolitan region of Vancouver, consults at least three times with citizens at different stages of the planning process. Promoting citizen participation in urban development issues such as land use, transport and housing requires having a good understanding of what the local or regional authority wants to achieve. Authorities should be clear on whether they want to inform or gather input as it is important that citizens are clear from the outset about the objectives of the exercise as a way to manage expectations. Having a good plan determines who can take part and for what reason. Once authorities receive feedback from people, it is necessary to share it back with the community as a whole. Reporting on what was heard and how it was heard is of the utmost importance to maintain credibility, as normally people want to understand how their feedback has been used. To promote citizen participation, local governments need to reach out to the people as they would never or very seldom approach government with their ideas or feedback. Government has to take the initiative. The messages should be simple as people should not feel overwhelmed. The use of ICT is facilitating the interaction between citizens and government, but consultations on line should be quick (2-3 minutes) and short (4 questions maximum).
Source: Discussion between OECD Secretariat and Surrey officials.
Boost the capacities and skills of the local public sector for engaging with citizens
Public participation in Busan, like in many other cities in Korea, is hampered by insufficient skills and capabilities of the public sector associated with the importance of engaging with citizens. “Preparing public sector staff for new professional roles – as advisers rather than producers – requires developing new knowledge and skills, and covering costs for training and change management” (OECD, 2011[23]). In some cases, inefficient training on how to constructively involve the variety of different groups willing to take part in public processes, inaccurate or inaccessible data and information, reliance on inefficient communication channels and mechanisms, and lack of confidence among the participants are some of the barriers that limit the effectiveness of citizen engagement in urban regeneration.
The OECD has found that:
Building capacity to support participatory practices at the local level starts with a willingness for politicians and civil servants alike to listen to and speak with citizens, and to see citizens as more than just a voter but rather as a partner in generating positive policy outcomes. Civil servants may often be reticent to engage with citizens. Incorporating management and training activities focused on dialogue between local public servants and citizens serves as a channel for adjusting the attitude of public servants, thereby contributing to shifts in organisational culture (OECD, 2017, p. 398[19]).
Busan authorities may need to ensure that land-use planners, for instance, have the technical skills to carry out a market analysis, prepare an economic impact statement, and map a floodplain. In Australia, for example, Value Creation Workshops are undertaken with citizens so that public servants and policy makers can receive people’s opinions and views for better services (The Value Creation Group, 2001[27]) . In Canada, public sector managers at all levels of government rely on the Common Measurements Tool to better gauge citizens’ expectations, assess levels of satisfaction with and the quality of the service provided, and identify new opportunities and priorities for service improvement (Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, n.d.[28]).
To increase and more effectively use public servants’ skills and capabilities, Busan Metropolitan Government could: i) allocate more resources to support general and project specific information and involvement; and ii) require training in communication and process management for officials and managers, and allocate the resources necessary to support such training. Local government officials should develop programmes, structures, strategies and feedback mechanisms to increase communication and information sharing among agencies, organisations and communities and provide for staff training on public participation tools and techniques. NGOs could provide training for local politicians and administrators on tools, techniques, cost and benefits of greater and more effective public involvement efforts and develop training programmes. The urban regeneration plans require “…professionals to change roles, becoming advisers, navigators, brokers, service providers, risk assessors, and auditors. New skills need to be set to manage more dialogue and collaborative approaches” (OECD, 2011, p. 88[23]).
MOLIT could create a database on public participation programmes, methods, tools and techniques to aid public participation and make this available to local governments. However, it must consider that the potential of the methods depends on the particular context of every local authority and the issues at stake (OECD, 2016[2]).
Conducting large-scale public engagement can require a great deal of expertise. It requires communications, managing relationships and a wealth of information across multiple platforms (online, event driven etc.). In order to support this, it can be very useful to have a central organisation which has expertise in such processes, can co-ordinate between different ministries/organisations and levels of government, and can create standards and regularity around the engagement process. Busan may consider creating a centre of expertise to help build the body of knowledge and experience gained from citizen engagement, and commit it to institutional memory. It can also help to ensure that practice is evidence-based and evolves over time. Such centres can support the evaluation of proactive engagement, test new approaches, develop a business case for engagement, spread relevant knowledge and skills, and eliminate organisational barriers. At the same time, centres of expertise complement but do not replace the need for government officials to develop their engagement capabilities. One alternative is to give a more active role to the Planning Institute of Busan following the example of the Prague Institute of Planning and Development (IPR Prague) and its Office of Public Participation (Box 3.10). Busan and the Planning Institute could work on a participation manual as an instrument to explain the modalities of participation to the wider public. The manual could help city districts and other authorities to get citizens involved in the development of the city. Moreover, this could provide Busan with professional support on engaging with citizens.
Box 3.10. Office of Public Participation at IPR Prague
In the Czech Republic, in 2015, the Prague Institute of Planning and Development (IPR Prague) opened its Office of Public Participation as a response to the growing demand for the involvement of Prague citizens in urban planning. It elaborated a Participation Manual approved by the Prague City Assembly in 2016. This document helps city institutions and districts to understand participatory processes and improves their ability to involve residents. In September 2017, IPR opened a new Centre for Architecture and Metropolitan Planning. Its work programme includes public debates, appearances by local and foreign experts, workshops, screenings and other activities. Its main mission is to improve the current form of public debate on the development of Prague.
Source: IPR Prague, http://en.iprpraha.cz/uploads/assets/Basic%20information%20about%20IPR%20Prague.pdf (accessed 17 October 2018).
Korea, and Busan in particular, may wish to analyse the experience of France’s National Commission for Public Debate (La Commission nationale du débat public, CNDP) (Box 3.11). The reason is that large-scale urban regeneration projects are, in many cases, a common source of land-use conflict. They are costly, complex, typically land intensive and for all of these reasons, involve risk. Given this, meaningful public engagement in decision making is an important part of the policy process. This entails raising public awareness about the scope, cost, location and timeframes for a project early on in the process to gather information and opinions on various elements. At their most involved level, such engagement practices include citizens in some element of decision making. There are several purposes to such public engagement efforts. For example, including the opinions and ideas of citizens (or stakeholders) in an urban regeneration project or in land-use planning processes can lead to more and better information with which to design or deliver a project. It may unveil important information about local conditions and uses. A diversity of perspectives can uncover gaps in a project that have not been addressed. Further, public engagement efforts are often used as a way to resolve conflict prior to undertaking a project. They lay bare the various dissenting opinions which can then be addressed upfront, before greater conflict emerges. Finally, by opening up projects to deliberation and debate, governments can build legitimacy around the final outcome, even if consensus is not achieved.
Box 3.11. Fostering civic engagement in France
In 1995, the French government established the National Commission for Public Debate (La Commission nationale du débat public, CNDP) to ensure the participation of the public in the development of major projects of national interest that have strong socio-economic impacts and/or significant impact on the environment or land. The Commission:
Ensures compliance with good public information throughout the phases of the project (implementation to completion)
Advises authorities on public consultation throughout the duration of the project
Ensures the collection of all opinions and recommendations are subject to a common methodology.
The CNDP is composed of a president, 2 vice presidents and 22 members from different backgrounds (parliamentarians, local elected officials, members of the State Council, the Supreme Court, the Court of Auditors, associations, employers, trade unions etc.) which ensure its independence, in particular with respect to governments and building owners.
Source: Commission national du débat public, https://www.debatpublic.fr/ (accessed 19 September 2018).
Explore the potential of digitalisation and new ICT for enhancing citizen participation
To increase the capacity for engagement, Busan may need to tap into the potential of digitalisation and new technologies, and the possible approaches that arise from them (i.e. social media, mobile government or open data) to better align engagement with the rapid pace of policy making. Although the use of technology for policy making and engagement in Korea, and Busan in particular, is not new, more can be done to fully tap into what technologies can offer. Technology is generally used to improve public communications, but engaging stakeholders in public governance processes such as urban regeneration or improved public service delivery is not that developed. For example, Busan could use technology to reach the younger cohorts of the population that may not otherwise be interested in participating in public meetings. However, one caveat is that not all residents may have the same skills in using ICT and therefore authorities need to make sure that there is wide variety of participation means.
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (OECD, 2014[29]) underlines the importance of digital technologies to the process of assuming more open and participatory approaches to policy making and public service delivery. For example, open data, geo-localisation and social media can help gather and process information such as the number and location of service institutions, their geographical features, user feedback or even available transportation network. The OECD Council recommends “…identifying and engaging non-governmental organisations, businesses or citizens to form a digital government ecosystem for the provision and use of digital services. This includes the use of business models to innovate the relevant actors’ involvement to adjust supply and demand; and the establishment of a framework of collaboration, both within the public sector and with external actors” (OECD, 2014, p. 7[12]). Digital welfare can help reach more citizens and extend access to information and empowerment in the area of urban regeneration by proposing improvements to government plans or even by formulating their own proposals and discussing them with government officials.
References
[24] Babinard, J. (2018), Sustainable mobility and citizen engagement: Korea shows the way, Transport for Development, http://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/sustainable-mobility-and-citizen-engagement-korea-shows-way (accessed on 31 July 2018).
[17] Busan City News (2018), Gamcheon Culture Village Recognized for its Successful Urban Regeneration Project, https://hapskorea.com/gamcheon-culture-village-recognized-for-its-successful-urban-regeneration-project/ (accessed on 1 August 2018).
[18] Choi, H. (2017), Seoul’s ’Urban Regeneration’ initiative revitalizes neighborhoods and lives of citizens, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seouls-urban-regeneration-initiative-revitalizes-neighborhoods-and-lives-of-citizens-300567484.html (accessed on 30 July 2018).
[1] Enyedi, G. (2004), Public participation in socially sustainable urban development, UNESCO/MOST, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001355/135555eo.pdf.
[22] European Commission (2015), Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda, European Commission, Strasbourg, http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2019).
[25] Evans, N. (2010), “Machi-zukuri as a new paradigm in Japanese urban planning: reality or myth?”, Japan Forum, Vol. 14/3, pp. 443-464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0955580022000008745org/10.1080/0955580022000008745.
[26] Fletcher, S. (2016), Machizukuri, https://participedia.net/en/methods/machizukuri (accessed on 6 August 2018).
[20] Frewer, L. and G. Rowe (2005), “Evaluatiing public participation exercises: strategic and practical issues”, in OECD (ed.), Evaluating public participation in policy making.
[3] Golobic, M. and I. Marusic (2007), “Developing an integrated approach for public participation: a case of land-use planning in Slovenia”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 34, pp. 993-1010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b32080.
[31] Government, K. (2013), Special Act on Promotion of and Support for Urban Regeneration, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=48163&type=sogan&key=4.
[7] Huttel, L. (2007), Civil Society in Post-Transition South Korea. How Does Civil Society Contribute to Democratic Consolidation?, Lund University, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1322206&fileOId=1322207 (accessed on 11 September 2018).
[28] Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (n.d.), Common Measurements Tool - Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (ICCS), https://iccs-isac.org/resources-tools/common-measurements-tool (accessed on 4 March 2019).
[15] Kelly, J. (2010), Cities: Who Decides?, GRATTAN Institute, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/052_cities_who_decides.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2018).
[16] Kim, N., S. Hong and S. Lee (2017), “Plans for Solving the Problems of Residents of Gamcheon Culture Village with Design Thinking”, International Journal of u-and e-Service, Vol. 10/6, pp. 115-122, http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2017.10.6.11.
[5] Kim, P. (2011), “Civic engagement, politics and policy in South Korea: significant developments but a considerable way to go”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 31, pp. 83-90, http://www.ccej.or.kr/English (accessed on 31 July 2018).
[8] Korean Government (2016), Special Act on Promotion of and Support for Urban Regeneration, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=39431&type=sogan&key=4 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
[10] Korean Government (2009), Specual Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal, http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?pstSeq=52776 (accessed on 31 July 2018).
[13] Lee, W. (2014), “Urban Regeneration: Two-Pronged Project”, Space and Environment, Vol. 60, pp. 6-10.
[30] OECD (2018), Housing Dynamics in Korea - Building Inclusive and Smart Cities, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264298880-en.
[32] OECD (2017), Land-Use Planning Systems in the OECD - Country Fact Sheets, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/land-use-planning-systems-in-the-oecd_9789264268579-en#page1.
[19] OECD (2017), Making Decentralisation Work in Chile: Towards Stronger Municipalities, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279049-en.
[2] OECD (2016), Engaging citizens for better policy outcomes, OECD, http://dx.doi.org/GOV/PGC(2016)6.
[6] OECD (2016), Society at a Glance 2016 OECD Social Indicators. A spotlight on youth, OECD, Paris, http://pac-files.oecd.org/acrobatebook/8116131e.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2018).
[21] OECD (2014), OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264214453-en.
[29] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Recommendation-digital-government-strategies.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2018).
[12] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government, http://www.oecd.org/regional-policy (accessed on 6 August 2018).
[14] OECD (2011), Government at a Glance 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2011-en.
[23] OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.
[9] Park, J. (2014), “National Guidance to Promote Korean Urban Regeneration”, Space and Environment, Vol. 60, pp. 1-6.
[4] Susskind, L. (1981), “Citizen Participation and Consensus Building in Land use Planning - a case study”, in de Neufville, J. (ed.), The Land use Debate in the United States, Plenum Press, New York.
[27] The Value Creation Group (2001), Value Creation Workshop. Review of Australia’s Job Network by The Productivity Commission Consolidation Report, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/job-network/workshop/valuecreationreport.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2019).
[11] Yoo, J. and S. Jung (2014), “Financing Urban Regeneration: Challenge and Opportunity”, Space and Environment, Vol. 60, pp. 11-14.
Notes
← 1. For further information see: www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/korea/
← 2. For further information see: Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. Citizens Powered Cities www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-innovation/blog/page/citizenpoweredcitiesco-producingbetterpublicserviceswithcitizens.htm
← 3. In the 1960s in Glasgow, United Kingdom the city built high-density buildings. The problem was not the design of those buildings but the fact that they were built for the wrong people. The buildings were used to re-house families from substandard apartment blocks around the city. Those from small communities were dropped into a completely different and alien lifestyle of living in towers, destroying community interaction and isolating people from society. For further information see: https://primetimeessay.com/public-participation-important-land-use-planning/.
← 4. Information gathered during mission meetings at the Architecture and Urban Research Institute (AURI) in Sejong, May 2018.
← 5. Mission notes.
← 6. Information gathered during the interviews held in Korea for this study.