Institutional Shifts in Urban Park Management Policies: A Policy Arrangement Approach to Apartment Construction in Korean Parks
Alessio D’Auria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article analyzes the institutional evolution of the phenomenon of constructing apartments in urban parks in South Korea through the Policy Arrangement Approach (PAA), comparing two typical cases: the "Citizens' Apartment Construction Project" (CACP69) in 1969 and the "Private Park Special Project" (PPSP09) in 2009. The topic of the article has certain research significance, and the framework is reasonable and the structure is complete, with an overall acceptable level. At the same time, there are some issues that need to be revised:
1. Insufficient review of existing literature
Although the article discusses the historical evolution of park management policies in South Korea, it is lacking in the integration and evaluation of domestic and international research in the literature review. When exploring the background of park erosion, the article mainly cites studies from South Korea and lacks comparative analysis with other countries.
- Insufficient dialogue with mainstream urban green space theories
Theoretical perspectives such as "green space justice", "environmental gentrification", and "urban political ecology" were not introduced, resulting in insufficient depth of analysis. Core concepts such as "publicness", "ecological services", and "spatial justice" were not theoretically defined, leading to insufficient critical analysis.
- Insufficient depth in policy comparison analysis
Although the article conducts a comparative analysis of two policy cases, there are significant differences in their historical backgrounds and implementation conditions. CACP69 was implemented under an authoritarian background, while PPSP09 was carried out in a democratic and market-oriented context. There are also significant differences in government leadership and private capital participation between the two cases. However, the article lacks in-depth discussion of the specific impacts of these differences on policy outcomes.
Author Response
[S1] Insufficient review of existing literature
Although the article discusses the historical evolution of park management policies in South Korea, it is lacking in the integration and evaluation of domestic and international research in the literature review. When exploring the background of park erosion, the article mainly cites studies from South Korea and lacks comparative analysis with other countries.
â–· [A1] Section 4 Discussion, '4.2. Comparison and Limitations with Similar Policies in Japan'. In this chapter, we compared and analyzed cases of erosion and conflict against neglected parks abroad. PPSP09 was compared with Japan's Private Development Parks (PDP04) policy. (Line Number: 696)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S2] Insufficient dialogue with mainstream urban green space theories
Theoretical perspectives such as "green space justice", "environmental gentrification", and "urban political ecology" were not introduced, resulting in insufficient depth of analysis. Core concepts such as "publicness", "ecological services", and "spatial justice" were not theoretically defined, leading to insufficient critical analysis.
â–· [A2] I also fully agree with your opinion. However, this study was limited to focusing on policy analysis and operation through PPA. We ask for your understanding for the focused direction of the paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S3] Insufficient depth in policy comparison analysis
Although the article conducts a comparative analysis of two policy cases, there are significant differences in their historical backgrounds and implementation conditions. CACP69 was implemented under an authoritarian background, while PPSP09 was carried out in a democratic and market-oriented context. There are also significant differences in government leadership and private capital participation between the two cases. However, the article lacks in-depth discussion of the specific impacts of these differences on policy outcomes.
â–· [A3] In Chapter 4, Discussion, '4.1. The impact of the construction of apartments in the park on the park green space policy’ was added. (Line Number: 668)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCOMMENTS:
The introduction gives comprehensive contextual background about the role of public parks, linking the concept with urban development, environmental, social, and economic functions. It references historical events and previous studies, but some issues could be clarified for international readers and more global literature cited to strengthen the framing.
The Policy Arrangement Approach (PAA) is appropriate for investigating institutional dynamics. The comparative study between two landmark policies (CACP69 and PPSP09) enables both historical and contemporary angles, giving depth to the institutional analysis.
The methodology combines archival research, legal document review, policy analysis, and case comparison. The list of sources, legal bases, and the actors involved in both case studies is detailed and clear. However, while sources are systematically presented, the selection criteria and analytical procedures could be more explicit.
The case analyses are systematically organized, progressing through agent, structure, discourse, and organization aspects for each policy case. Summaries, comparative tables, figures, and quantitative data support the narrative.
The conclusions appropriately synthesize findings, highlighting the institutional logic shift toward property rights, lack of coherent legal definitions for parks, and the exclusion of communities from decision-making. Strategic recommendations follow logically from the evidence.
Figures and tables (e.g., Table 4, Figures 5/6/8/9) add clarity to complex data but could benefit from more concise captions and labels. Some figures reproduce materials from governmental reports, which could be simplified for better legibility.
SUGGESTIONS:
- Strengthen the introduction with references from outside Korea to highlight global relevance.
- Clearly state methodological selection and analytical procedures for transparency.
- Simplify and polish tables/figures for clarity—some currently contain excess detail.
- Consider thorough language editing to improve conciseness and readability.
- Emphasize more directly the policy implications for global audiences, not only Korean stakeholders.
- The originality and societal relevance are notable—particularly in connecting legal frameworks, property rights, and community exclusion in urban green space management.
Author Response
We thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Your comments and suggestions have become grains of wheat that can improve the perfection of my thesis. Therefore, we tried to reflect all of your suggestions and marked the reflected parts in red. Once again, thank you for your efforts in developing this paper.
[S1] Strengthen the introduction with references from outside Korea to highlight global relevance.
â–· [A1] In Section 4, Discussion, '4.2. Comparison and Limitations with Similar Policies in Japan '. In this chapter, we compared and analyzed cases of erosion and conflict against neglected parks abroad. PPSP09 was compared with Japan's Private Development Parks (PDP04) policy. (Line Number: 696)
[S2] Clearly state methodological selection and analytical procedures for transparency.
â–· [A2] ‘2.2. Method' reflects your suggestion. We have changed the existing Tables 2 and 3 to appendices and added explanations for each research source. (Line Number: 174, 1006, 1007)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S3] Consider thorough language editing to improve conciseness and readability.
â–· [A3] This manuscript was submitted after completing language proofreading by a professional institution. And during the revision process, I did my best to correct my language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S4] Emphasize more directly the policy implications for global audiences, not only Korean stakeholders.
â–· [A4] As stated in [A1], in Section 4 Discussion, '4.2.' was added. (Line Number: 696)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S5] The originality and societal relevance are notable—particularly in connecting legal frameworks, property rights, and community exclusion in urban green space management.
â–· [A5] Section 4. Discussion fully reflects your suggestion. In 4.1., we added a discussion on the impact of CACP69 and PPSP09 on park and green space policy in Korea. (Line Number: 668)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is excellent, codifying policies on green parks in Korea and, in particular, in Seoul, and highlighting the problems created by their privatization, initially informal and later officially organized.
It would be useful to include a list of parks in Seoul with comments on the changes they have undergone as a result of the various urban policies mentioned.
A more detailed example could be given of a typical green park where these policies are applied.
The conclusions could be more closely aligned with the observations in the summary.
The debate on green parks in Seoul usually focuses on the unique design of these parks and the participatory process of creating the people's Seoul forest park (with the initiative of Foundation Green Trust), which came about after a massive popular intervention to reclaim it.
The debate on the privatization of parks is limited to issues of access for certain uses. However, it does not extend to the privatization of green areas outside of institutionalized parks. This article extends its interest to these areas, for which there is little literature, as they are treated more as areas of popular self-construction, informal building, etc. It explains how these areas are now being converted into residential investment areas by large companies, displacing residents and justifying the dispossession of former green areas by these companies.
Therefore, this research has a particular interest.
Methodologically, the authors should have distinguished between four types of green areas: public urban green parks, peri-urban institutionalized public green parks, private green parks, and public open parks—green areas that are under the most pressure for privatization. It would then be useful to show maps with examples of encroachment on suburban green parks (institutionalized and non-institutionalized). The Google Earth application can be used to search for landscapes from 20 years ago and see how they have gradually changed.
Plans for the redevelopment of suburban areas and the companies involved can also be searched for. Finally, a typology of all these can be created.
The conclusions of the article should not be limited to a conceptual observation of the difference between a green park and a green area, but should also summarize the findings from the above methodology as well as concerns about the future privatization of green areas by large companies and the displacement of residents from poorer residential areas located in these areas.
Finally, it could refer to the history of the public forest park of 2006 and ask why there is no corresponding citizen movement today.
Author Response
We thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Your comments and suggestions have become grains of wheat that can improve the perfection of my thesis. Therefore, we tried to reflect all of your suggestions and marked the reflected parts in red. Once again, thank you for your efforts in developing this paper.
[S1] Methodologically, the authors should have distinguished between four types of green areas: public urban green parks, peri-urban institutionalized public green parks, private green parks, and public open parks—green areas that are under the most pressure for privatization. It would then be useful to show maps with examples of encroachment on suburban green parks (institutionalized and non-institutionalized). The Google Earth application can be used to search for landscapes from 20 years ago and see how they have gradually changed.
â–· [A1] We are very sympathetic to your suggestion. However, this study focuses on the construction of apartments in parks among various park encroachment cases. Although it may not satisfy you, we have added a similar case from Japan to 4.2 of the Discussion section for comparison. If we have the opportunity, we would like to push your proposal into new research. (Line Number: 696)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S2] The conclusions of the article should not be limited to a conceptual observation of the difference between a green park and a green area, but should also summarize the findings from the above methodology as well as concerns about the future privatization of green areas by large companies and the displacement of residents from poorer residential areas located in these areas.
â–· [A2] Unfortunately, the deadline for revision of this manuscript is too short to import data on migrants and identify their problems. However, we have added the impact of green space privatization on park green space policies in each era recorded in this study to 4.1 of the Discussion section. Instead, the conclusion was modified to answer the question of this study in '1.2' in the introduction section. (Line Number: 668, 795)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S3] Finally, it could refer to the history of the public forest park of 2006 and ask why there is no corresponding citizen movement today.
â–· [A3] We have included "â—‹ Concerns about private parks" at the end of the '3.2.4.' section regarding your proposal about the resistance of citizens against the construction of houses in the park. (Line Number: 617)
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a well-researched comparative institutional analysis of two major South Korean policies that led to residential construction within urban parks. t provides historical depth and critical insights into shifting legal, political, and discursive mechanisms that underlie park erosion.
The paper is overall well written with good scientific value. I have only to report and suggest to the authors, some minor comments, which I believe, if they are implemented, they will enhance the overall value of the research.
- Figure 7 and 8 are low quality images. You should check minor issues e.g. the value km2.
- The empirical strategy (data collection and analysis method) is not described in depth. There is no explanation of how archival sources were coded, what criteria were used for document selection, or how data reliability was ensured. In addition, justify the selection of CACP69 and PPSP09 as representative cases
- The conclusions section is very limited. The authors should enhance it, and try to presents specific answers, regarding the research questions, that they mention, in Section 1.2.
- Table 2 and 3, present the documents that was taken under consideration in the research. The titles in many documents, don’t provide accurate information, regarding their content (e.g. The Ministry of Construction Notice No. 524 …..), consider provide more details for each field, with an additional description of content field in your tables, and if it is large information, you can present the tables in an Appendix, while in the main article you can provide a short resume.
Author Response
We thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Your comments and suggestions have become grains of wheat that can improve the perfection of my thesis. Therefore, we tried to reflect all of your suggestions and marked the reflected parts in red. Once again, thank you for your efforts in developing this paper.
[S1] Figure 7 and 8 are low quality images. You should check minor issues e.g. the value km2.
â–· [A1] The quality of the Figure and minor problems have been supplemented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S2] The empirical strategy (data collection and analysis method) is not described in depth. There is no explanation of how archival sources were coded, what criteria were used for document selection, or how data reliability was ensured. In addition, justify the selection of CACP69 and PPSP09 as representative cases
â–· [A2] We have fully explained the data collected by supplementing the '2.2 Method'. (Line Number: 174)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S3] The conclusions section is very limited. The authors should enhance it, and try to presents specific answers, regarding the research questions, that they mention, in Section 1.2.
â–· [A3] The conclusion section has been modified to answer the question presented in '1.2. The Purpose of the study'. (Line Number: 795)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[S4] Table 2 and 3, present the documents that was taken under consideration in the research. The titles in many documents, don’t provide accurate information, regarding their content (e.g. The Ministry of Construction Notice No. 524 …..), consider provide more details for each field, with an additional description of content field in your tables, and if it is large information, you can present the tables in an Appendix, while in the main article you can provide a short resume.
â–· [A4] Tables 2 and 3 have been replaced with Appendix 1 and 2, and descriptions of each material have been added. (Line Number: 1006, 1007)
