Effectiveness of Public Partnerships in Non-Urban Regeneration Projects in Korea: Seeing through Place-Keeping Theory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Justification for Public Intervention in Regeneration Projects
2.1.1. Securing the Publicness of Regeneration Projects
2.1.2. Regeneration Projects According to Urban Regime Theory
2.2. Place-Keeping (PK) as an Analysis Frame
3. Material and Methods
3.1. Study Site
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Formation Process and Characteristics of Non-Urban Public-Led Regeneration Projects from a Place-Keeping Perspective
4.1.1. Policy
4.1.2. Governance and Partnership
4.1.3. Design and Maintenance
4.1.4. Funding
4.1.5. Evaluation
4.2. Discourse Analysis of the Non-Urban Public-Led Regeneration Project Planning Process
4.2.1. Macro-Discourse
4.2.2. Micro-Discourse on Place-Keeping Elements
5. Discussion
5.1. Limited Private Investment by Universal Public Investment
5.2. Formal Partnership under State Control
5.3. New Role of Experts Leading Governance
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- In terms of funding, considering that public finance has a clear deadline, there is a need to stimulate private investment, which is allowed in a limited way. Thus, the selection of the income project should be in line with the autonomy of the region and the project effectiveness will have to be converted into a public review method. Furthermore, in order to secure financial resources within the scarce region, conditions for investment outside the region should also be established. In this regard, the positive administration of the local government is required.
- (2)
- Regarding partnership, there is a need to relax the constraints on the local community by the public authority. A uniformity of design and maintenance was observed as the opinions of the local community were rejected by the central government. The central government should not make the purpose of the project a strict criterion, so that the morale of the local community will not be reduced. In addition, the central government is required to change their attitude such that the special situation of the region is reflected in the plan, and that there is no difference between the preliminary plan and the final plan.
- (3)
- In relation to governance, the neutral position of experts becomes the driving force that leads the project in the long term. At the same time, it is necessary to form a diverse workforce to represent the views of the residents. As a tool that can realize this, this study urges the creation of an intermediary organization close to or residing in the region, that performs tasks such as networking, capacity building, resource services, mediation, policy promotion, investigation and research, consulting and consultation, coordination, and information gathering [88,89]. This organization will be an expert organization “delegated to self-complete authority”. It is expected that it will be possible to overcome the limitations of time-limited public support and perform responsible duties.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dowding, K. Explaining urban regimes. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2001, 25, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, J.S. Partnerships versus Regimes: Why regime theory cannot explain urban coalitions in the UK. J. Urban Aff. 2003, 25, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N. New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 2002, 34, 427–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hospers, G.J. People, place and partnership: Exploring strategies to revitalize town centers. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2017, 24, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stouten, P.; Rosenboom, H. Urban regeneration in lyon-connectivity and social exclusion. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2013, 20, 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Griffith, J.M. Gentrification: Perspective on the return to the central city. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1996, 11, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heath, S.C.; Rabinovich, A.; Barreto, M. Putting identity into the community: Exploring the social dynamics of urban regeneration. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 47, 855–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Couch, C. Urban Renewal: Theory and Practice; Macmillan Education: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, P.; Sykes, H.; Granger, G. Urban Regeneration; Sage: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mackintosh, M. Partnership: Issues of policy and negotiation. Local Econ. 1992, 7, 210–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peck, J.; Tickell, A. Too many partners. The future for regeneration partnership. Local Econ. 1994, 9, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasting, A. Unravelling the process of ‘partnership’ in urban regeneration policy. Urban Stud. 1996, 33, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, R. Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Stud. 1999, 36, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, M. Flexibilities with a purpose: Constructing the legitimacy of spatial governance partnerships. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 1943–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoh, H.M. The process of partnership-building in public-led urban regeneration project: An analysis of sinchon regeneration project through urban regime theory. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2020, 55, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, R.; Moon, G. Urban Policy in Britain: The City, the State, and the Market; Macmillan: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Available online: www.anru.fr (accessed on 8 October 2021).
- Lee, S.K.; Choi, M.A. Study on the national urban renovation program and the urban renovation operations in France by enactment of borloo law. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2012, 47, 15–33. [Google Scholar]
- Ciesiółka, P. Urban regeneration as a new trend in the development policy in Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2018, 37, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ball, M.; Maginn, P.J. Urban change and conflict: Evaluating the role of partnerships in urban regeneration in the UK. Hous. Stud. 2005, 20, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linchfield, D. Urban Regeneration for the 1990s; London Planning Advisory Committee: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.H.; Lee, W.Y.; Lee, D.G. A study on improvement of multi-dimensional urban planning policies as private initiated urban regeneration methods. J. Urban Des. Inst. Korea 2017, 18, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Oceans and Fishery. A Study on Definition and Spatial Analysis of Fishing Community for Integrated Development; Korean Official Documents; MOF: Sejong, Korea, 2014. Available online: https://scienceon.kisti.re.kr/srch/selectPORSrchReport.do?cn=TRKO201600011495 (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- Nam, J.V.; Dmpsey, N. Place-keeping for health? Charting the challenges for urban park management in practice. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nam, J.V.; Dmpsey, N. Understanding stakeholder perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of formal and informal planting in Sheffield’s district parks. Sustainability 2019, 11, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nam, J.V.; Dmpsey, N. Community food growing in parks? Assessing the acceptability and feasibility in Sheffield, UK. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dempsy, N.; Martinez Velarde, C.L.; Samual, M.; Bakshi, Y.; Baradi, M. From river to Riverfront: How meanings and cultural heritage change. The case of the Sabarmati Riverfront project, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Town Plan. Rev. 2020, 91, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, N.; Burton, M.; Selina, J. In-House, Contracted Out…or Something Else? Parks and Road Management in England. In Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England; Lindholst, A., Hansen, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 101–116. [Google Scholar]
- Dempy, N.; Jayaraj, S.R.; Redmond, E. There’s always the river: Social and environmental equity in rapidly urbanising landscapes in India. Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matijssen, T.J.M.; Van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Buijs, A.E.; Elands, B.H.M.; Erlwein, S.; Lafortezza, R. The long-term prospects of citizens managing urban green space: From place making to place-keeping? Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 26, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, P.; Skyes, H. (Eds.) Urban Regeneration: A Handbook; Sage Publication: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Mcinroy, N. Urban regeneration and public space: The story of an urban park. Space Policy 2000, 4, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Nam, J.V.; Kim, N.C.; Kim, D.W. Exploring policy contexts and sustainable management structure for park regeneration—A focus on the Case of Green Estate Ltd, Sheffield, UK. J. Korea Soc. Environ. Restor. Technol. 2019, 22, 15–34. [Google Scholar]
- De Magalhães, C.; Carmona, M. Innovations in the management of public space: Reshaping and refocusing governance. Plan. Theory Pract. 2006, 7, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, N.; Burton, M.; Mathers, A. Place-keeping-responsive, long-term open space management. Town Ctry. Plan. 2012, 81, 431–436. [Google Scholar]
- Sim, J.Y.; Zoh, K.G. Strategies of large park development and management through governance—Case studies of the presidio and Sydney Harbour national park. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2016, 44, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, S.; Bunce, S. Delivering sustainable buildings and communities: Eclipsing social concerns through private sector-led urban regeneration and development. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peyroux, E. City improvement districts (CIDs) in Johannesburg: Assessing the political and socio-spatial implications of private-led urban regeneration. TRIALOG 2006, 2, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.I.; Rhee, J.O. An establishment of key issues, planning goals and development of step-by step progress model for sustainable urban regeneration. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2009, 25, 217–225. [Google Scholar]
- Tiesdell, S.; Allmendinger, P. The new right and neighborhood regeneration. Hous. Stud. 2001, 16, 311–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.S.; Kim, K.S. A critical review of the current policy and legal systems of the urban regeneration in terms of the publicness. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2013, 14, 35–52. [Google Scholar]
- Saitō, J. Publicness; Iwanami: Tokyo, Japan, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Mossberger, K.; Stoker, G. The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization. Urban Aff. Rev. 2001, 366, 810–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imbroscio, D.L. Overcoming the neglect of economics in urban regime theory. J. Urban Aff. 2003, 25, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, K. Rereading urban regime theory: A sympathetic critique. Geoforum 1996, 27, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, T.W. Unevenness in urban governance. Stadium building and downtown redevelopment in phoenix, Arizona. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2008, 26, 1177–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, I. Analyzing urban governance networks bringing regime theory back in. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2013, 31, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, C.N. Reflections on regime politics: From governing coalition to urban political order. Urban Aff. Rev. 2015, 51, 101–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, C.N. Urban regimes, and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. J. Urban Aff. 1999, 15, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoker, G.; Mossberger, K. Urban regime theory in comparative perspective. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 1994, 12, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubben, N.; Williams, B. Partnerships in Urban Property Development; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, J.S. Partnership and Regimes: The Politics of Urban Regeneration in the UK; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Keith, M.; Pile, S. Place and Politics of Identity; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Zukin, S. The Cultures of Cities; Blackwell Publishers: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Misener, I.; Manson, D.S. Fostering community development through sporting events strategies: An examination of urban regime perceptions. J. Sport Manag. 2009, 23, 770–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, M.; De Magalhães, C.; Hammond, L. Public Space: The Management Dimension; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Arts, B.; Leory, P. Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Dempsey, N.; Harry, S. Place-Keeping: Open Space Management of Public Space; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dempsey, N.; Burton, M.; Duncan, R. Evaluating the effectiveness of a cross-sector partnership for green space management: The case of Southey Owlerton, Sheffield, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, N.; Burton, M. Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.M. Analysis and utilization of big data. Commun. Korean Inst. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2012, 30, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- Hotho, A.; Nürnberger, A.; Paaß, G. A brief survey of text mining. Ldv Forum 2005, 20, 19–62. [Google Scholar]
- Chakraborty, G.; Pagolu, M.; Garla, S. Text Mining and Analysis: Practical Methods, Examples, and Case Studies Using SAS; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, M.W.; Castellanos, M. Survey of text mining. Comput. Rev. 2004, 45, 548. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J.S.; Kim, N.R.; Han, E.J. Analysis of trends in science and technology using keyword network analysis. J. Korea Ind. Inf. Syst. Res. 2018, 23, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, H.R.; Jang, Y. Lessons from good and bad practices in retail-led urban regeneration projects in the republic of Korea. Cities 2017, 61, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, E.; Lee, W.; Kim, D. Does resident participation in an urban regeneration project improve neighborhood satisfaction: A case study of “amichjang” in Busan, South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rurals Affairs. Collection of Guidelines for Implementation of General Agricultural, Mountain and Fishing Village Development Projects (2004–2017); Korean Official Documents; MAFRA: Sejong, Korea, 2017.
- Committee on Regional Development. White Paper on Regional Development Policy; Korean Official Documents; MAFRA: Sejong, Korea, 2017.
- Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Fishing Village New Deal Project Guidelines; Korean Official Documents; MMAF: Sejong, Korea, 2021.
- The Government of the Republic of Korea. Korea Policy Briefing. Korean Official Documents. Available online: https://www.korea.kr/special/policyCurationView.do?newsId=148863948 (accessed on 21 November 2021).
- Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rurals Affairs. MAFRA Project Guidelines; Korean Official Documents; MAFRA: Sejong, Korea, 2021.
- Baek, S.G.; Kwon, H.A. Sustainability through non-agricultural business development in resident cooperative planning: A case of Korea’s rural area. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, R.M. The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultant, Facilitators, Manager, Trainers, and Coaches; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, P. The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration. In Urban Regeneration: A Handbook; Sage Publication: London, UK, 2000; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Korea Rural Community Corporation. 2016 Rural Persilator Training Course Education Textbook; Korean Official Documents; MAFRA: Sejong, Korea, 2016.
- Shin, Y.G.; Cho, J.H. Status, and improvements of facilitation techniques in developing resident-directed green villages: Focused on rural area field forums for general agricultural, mountain, and fishing town development projects. Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 30, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.B. A study on the implementation strategies of urban regeneration policy and project management through a case study of the Sigle regeneration budget in the England. J. Urban Des. Inst. Korea 2016, 17, 107–122. [Google Scholar]
- Brennan, A.; Rhodes, J.; Tyler, P. The Distribution of SRB challenge fund expenditure in relation to local area need in England. Urban Stud. 1999, 36, 2069–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shucksmith, M. Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociol. Rural. 2009, 50, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, C.; Geddes, M. Urban governance under neoliberalism: New labour and the restructuring of state-space. Antipode 2008, 40, 252–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, S.; Nevin, B. Continuity and change: A review of English regeneration policy in the 1990s. Reg. Stud. 1999, 33, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruce, A.; Clarson, D. Assessing the potential and limits of community-based initiatives in urban regeneration: Three decades of experience on Sheffield’s manor estate. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2017, 4, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foley, P.; Martin, S. A new deal for community? Public participation in regeneration and local delivery. Policy Politics 2000, 28, 479–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dargan, L. Conceptualizing regeneration in the new deal for communities. Plan. Theory Pract. 2007, 8, 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, J.M. Contemporary Urban Planning; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, H.J.; Kang, M.G. Role of urban planners in urban regeneration planning: Case of Haebangchon in Seoul. Seoul Stud. 2019, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Howells, J. Intermediation, and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 2006, 35, 715–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moss, T. Intermediaries, and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41, 1480–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
PK Elements | Content |
---|---|
policy |
|
governance |
|
partnership |
|
funding |
|
design and maintenance |
|
evaluation |
|
Rural Hub Revitalization Project (RHRP) | |||
---|---|---|---|
R-1 (Hwayang-eup, Cheongdo-gun) | R-2 (Heunghae-eup, Pohang-si) | R-3 (Jeungpyeong-eup, Jeungpyeong-gun) | |
[a] | |||
[b] | 7899 | 40,222 | 32,648 |
[c] | 43.15 | 105.3 | 81.81 |
[d] | Development restricted due to the existence of cultural assets in the jurisdiction | Restoration in progress due to earthquake damage in 2017 | Smallest administrative division in Korea |
[e] | 2017–2020 | 2019–2023 | 2018–2011 |
[f] | 8000 | 15,000 | 8000 |
Fishing Village New Deal 300 Project (FVND) | |||
F-1 (Sinchang 2-ri, Pohang-si) | F-2 (Jukpo Port, Yeosu-si) | F-3 (Dokjeon Port, Yeosu-si) | |
[a] | |||
[b] | 98 | 162 | 330 |
[c] | 106,000 | 362,000 | 630,000 |
[d] | Spotlight in the field of fishing village experience | Development of surrounding tourism project since 2012 | Adjacent to Dadohae Marine National Park Area |
[e] | 2019–2021 | 2019–2021 | 2020–2022 |
[f] | 12,865 | 8931 | 9574 |
PK Framework | Collected Materials Used | Content Extracted from the Materials |
---|---|---|
Policy | Related laws | Basic system and procedure of the project |
Governance and partnership | Related laws and operating plans | Decision-making structure and mechanism for stakeholders |
Funding | Construction statement | Project investment plan and profit plan after project completion |
Design and Maintenance | Basic plan report, resident autonomy regulations (draft) | Project contents (facility planning, management and operation plan) |
Evaluation | Basic plan report, resident autonomy regulations (draft) | Monitoring content |
Category | Expansion of Basic Living Base (H/W) | Improvement of Local Landscape (H/W) | Reinforcement of Regional Capabilities (S/W) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preliminary Plan | Final Plan | Preliminary Plan | Final Plan | Preliminary Plan | Final Plan | |||||
[A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | [A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | [B] | [D] | |
R-1 | Community center | 3759 (43%) | ○ | 4188 (52%) | Ecological park | 2691 (31%) | × | 1880 (24%) | 2297 (26%) | 710 (9%) |
Square | × | Shelter | ○ | |||||||
Restoration of old roads | × | Sculpture | × | |||||||
Bus stop | ○ | Ecological forest | × | |||||||
Tourism information system | × | |||||||||
(New) Road improvement | ||||||||||
R-2 | Community center | 11,230 (75%) | ○ | 10,853 (72%) | Road improvement | 790 (5%) | ○ | 371 (2%) | 2520 (17%) | 1979 (13%) |
Safety theme park | × | |||||||||
Village network | ○ | |||||||||
Safe route | × | |||||||||
R-3 | Cultural center | 5936 (74%) | ○ | 5869 (73%) | Road improvement | 174 (2%) | × | 0 (0%) | 1096 (14%) | 1170 (15%) |
Cultural street | × | |||||||||
Safe route | × |
Category | Common Project (H/W) | Specialized Project (H/W) | S/W Project | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preliminary Plan | Final Plan | Preliminary Plan | Final Plan | Preliminary Plan | Final Plan | |||||
[A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | [A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | [B] | [D] | |
F-1 | Fishing port maintenance | 5568 (43%) | ○ | 5852 (45%) | Distribution center, community center | 6201 (48%) | ○ | 4652 (36%) | 76 (0.6%) | 637 (5%) |
coastal walk, seawater pool | ○ | |||||||||
seaside park, observatory | × | |||||||||
(New) Village landscape improvement | ||||||||||
F-2 | Bridge | 5600 (63%) | × | 2790 (31%) | Crime prevention facility | 3895 (44%) | ○ | 4543 (51%) | 200 (0.2%) | 419 (5%) |
Street maintenance | ○ | |||||||||
Community center, maintenance of the | ○ | |||||||||
tidal flat experience center | ||||||||||
Restaurant, car theater | × | |||||||||
House repair, vacant house demolition | × | |||||||||
(New) Fishing port maintenance | (New) Dulle-gil (promenade) | |||||||||
F-3 | Dock | 4764 (50%) | × | 5431 (59%) | Public bath, marine fishing ground | 2971 (31%) | ○ | 1953 (21%) | 300 (3%) | 340 (4%) |
demolition | Seafood market | × | ||||||||
Seafood | × | Coastal trail, reed trail | × | |||||||
workshop | ||||||||||
(New) Fishing port maintenance | (New) Improvement of residential environment |
Category | Income Project Investment Cost | Self-Payment | H/W | S/W |
---|---|---|---|---|
R-1 | 158 (1.9%) | 0 | Cafe operation, shopping mall revitalization, education, event operation | |
R-2 | 120 (0.8%) | 0 | Urban–rural exchange program | |
R-3 | 130 (1.6%) | 0 | YouTube creator operation | |
F-1 | 1399 (10.8%) | 228 | Creation of distribution center | Strengthening regional capabilities |
F-2 | 661 (7.4%) | 22 | Restoration of the tidal flat experience center | Village revitalization plan |
F-3 | 231 (2.5%) | 35 | Seafood revitalization plan |
Category | Network of Related Topics | Discourse Issues |
---|---|---|
RHRP | Architecture—facilities—talk RHRP—architecture—talk RHRP—facilities—talk |
|
Masterplan—consultation Village—preliminary plan Residents—review Linkage—location |
| |
FVND | Breakwater—masterplan—talk Masterplan—problem—talk Breakwater—problem—talk |
|
Landscape—facilities—creation Region—people—review Self—payment—operation—measures Self—payment—operation—value |
|
Category | Network of Related Topics | Discourse Issue |
---|---|---|
Policy | Meeting—connection—direction Residents—concern—talk Today—creation—review Preliminary plan—consultation—problem |
|
Governance | Project cost—review—residents We—residents—review Region—needs Planning—content |
|
Partnership | Promotion committee—concern—value Residents—progress Planning—opinion |
|
Funding | Space—operation—masterplan We—one—way seafood—income project—project cost |
|
Design & Maintenance | Breakwater—operation Today—landscape—architecture Parking—review—plan |
|
Evaluation | Insufficient number of comments |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oh, C.; Sim, J. Effectiveness of Public Partnerships in Non-Urban Regeneration Projects in Korea: Seeing through Place-Keeping Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084845
Oh C, Sim J. Effectiveness of Public Partnerships in Non-Urban Regeneration Projects in Korea: Seeing through Place-Keeping Theory. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084845
Chicago/Turabian StyleOh, Changsong, and Jisoo Sim. 2022. "Effectiveness of Public Partnerships in Non-Urban Regeneration Projects in Korea: Seeing through Place-Keeping Theory" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084845