Regional Cooperation and Spatial Planning in South Korea

Jae-Gil ParkSenior Research Fellow

Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements

1. Introduction

In the case of Korea, the whole country could be seen as a single mega-region. South Korea has a total area of about 100 thousand km2 and population of 48 million(2005). More than 90% of the population dwells in cities and there are 8 cities with over 1 million, including Seoul with 10 million. More than 80% of the national population lives in 11 city regions including the Seoul (21 million), Busan (4.3 million), and Daegu (3.1 million) metropolitan areas1. The National GDP is estimated to be 800 billion U.S. dollars (2005), GNI per capita is 16 thousand U.S. dollars and the most people of the country live in ‘a half-day life zone’.

Korea Mega Region

China Mega RegionJapan Mega Region

Seoul

Beijing

Tokyo

<Figure 1> Northeast Asia Mega-Regions

1 The other 8 city regions; Daejeon(2.5million), Gwanju(1.7million), Ma-Chang-Jin(1.4million), Ulsan(1.3million), Cheonju(1.0million), Gwangnang(0.7million), Jeju(0.5million)

1

In the Korean development era, national economic growth has been supported by the national territorial and regional plan initiated by the central government. After the 1990’s, the demand for a new regional planning increased as the Korean society shifted their interest toward the quality of life in the process of further democratization and regionalization. There are still challenges to manage in the planning approach method along with the side effect from the development era. This paper analyzes the new trend of national territorial planning as well as regional planning, and proposes a new development direction for the metropolitan planning of the capital region. This paper consists of five chapters including the introduction. Chapter 2 studies the theoretical planning model and its institutional conditions. Referred Chapters 2, 3 and 4 discuss the trends and challenges of regional planning. Chapter 5 concludes with the primary findings.

Cheonju

Capital Region

Daejeon

J eonju

Gwangju

GwangyangMa-Chang-J in

Busan

Ulsan

Daegu

J eju

<Figure 2> 11 City Regions2. Planning model and institutional circumstances

2

This paper tries to set up key elements to measure the establishment and implementation process in planning and in the context of regional cooperation. Along with these elements, the whole system of the theoretical planning model and its execution will be studied together.

2.1. Theoretical planning model

The planning theory or the meta-planning theory discuss three issues; substantive elements, planning agency and planning procedure (Faludi, 1977:7-11). First, the substantive element that planning deals with represents the effects of planning results and relates with the term that regional plan accompanies behind the lower plan, policies and institutional improvement. It means that the upper plan provides a planning framework as a guidebook to lower plans instead of blueprint planning.

Second, regarding the planning agencies, considering regional planning as a allocative plan, the function of regional planning changes as the society shifts from centralization to regionalization (Friedmann, 1973:70-73). In the centralizing society, allocative planning is more like command planning. Focused on the plan, the government takes the role of a technical planner. In the other hand, as the society becomes regionalized, distribution planning becomes policy planning with agreed policies among the planning bodies and focuses more on decision making, while technical planners only give advice.

<Table 1> The planning model reviewFunction Planning Model

Before AfterSubstantive elements Effectivation of planning results Blueprint FrameworkPlanning Agency Cooperation between bodies Command PoliciesEarly process of the plan Proposing Issues Closed Open

Third, in the planning procedure, it depends more on the cooperation among regions and intra-regional participation and demands interactive approaches to strategy planning specially in the early proposing procedure.

3

For these, among the three stages for decision-making (forum, arena and court), forum is the key stage to gather comprehensive opinions from various people.(Bryson & Crosby, 1993: 175-194).

Therefore, in the sense of theoretical planning model, regional planning is in the middle of transition from blueprint planning to a plan which presents the framework, command planning to policy planning and discussing the settled plan to discussing issues from the beginning.

2.2. Institutional condition of planning

Spatial planning such as regional planning influences the allocation of uses by putting activity in lands. In the past 40 years of rapid growth, the main role of the Korean land use plan was to concentrate the limited capital and technology into a specified region for economic growth. Regulating the land use as it was decided, the urban master planning act was revised when new developments were needed. “The Urban Master Plan” was first introduced in 1981, but it was used only to prevent inappropriate or arbitrary changes in zoning. The early “Urban Master Plan” was used as a sudden countermeasure against regional or national territorial planning. With the lack of flexibility, windfall profits accrued from land have increased. As a result, planning has lost its future-leading function and individuals have started to struggle with land use regulation.

The land use and development regulation system for regional or national territorial planning has also undergone changes from the development era. The early land use management system regulated separately by “The Urban Planning Act” and “The National Territory Management Act” caused disordered developments for the environment by the end of 1990s.

Therefore, the integrated land use management system was discussed with the principles of “plan-led development”. An establishment and application process in regional planning under the national territorial plan and regional cooperation could be linked with the change of “plan-led development” in land use management.

Long-term planning such as regional planning should work out as policy planning and demand complements of irrational land use of prior zoning rather than target-based blueprint planning. Urban planning such as zoning and urban management should be reconsidered from present vertical up-

4

down planning to a horizontal triangle paradigm.(Park, 2004)

<Figure 3> The Paradigm Shift in Urban Planning and Development System

3. Trends on National territorial and regional planning

3.1. National territorial plan and regional cooperation

The Comprehensive National Territorial Plan (hereafter, CNTP) in Korea sets up the basic directions for the use, development and conservation of the Korean national territory as a whole and seeks to achieve them, responding to social and economic changes (Refer to ‘the Standard Act for the Korean National Territory’ Article 6). The Korean government has to review the CNTP every 5 years after the building-up of the plan, and if necessary, revise it.

The CNTP had the title of “the Comprehensive Plan for the Construction of National Territory” until 1999 since it had first been launched in 1972. Since 2000, the plan has been titled the Comprehensive National Territorial Plan.

The 1st CNTP (1972-1981) was intended to support the industrialization and economic growth in Korea on the basis

5

of the growth-pole development. However, the plan contributed to generating the gap between the area on or around the Seoul-Busan axis and the remainder of Korea.

The 2nd CNTP(1982-1991) pursued the balanced development of the Korean national territory via the growth control of Seoul and Busan and the support of growth poles in other regions. In 1987 the plan had to be revised for the following reasons: 1) the lack of action programs, 2) the plan did not counteract but aggravated the regional gap, and 3) the Olympic Games were expected to be held in 1988.

The 3rd CNTP (1992-1999) sought to construct the new industrial areas, improve the central fuction of large cities, and manage such cities and their surrounding area outside the Capital Region of Korea.

The 4th CNTP (2000-2020) changed its official name to the Comprehensive National Territorial Plan in order to integrate development into environmental preservation, and it extended the planning period to 20 years from 10 years. The Korean government made these shifts in the face of the economic crisis of the late 1990s and the new mega trends in the 21st century. The 4th CNTP set up the integration among regions, into Northeast Asia and between South and North Korea as the basic direction for the development of the Korean national territory. And the plan envisaged integrated open-door development axes, which comprised the East-West inland axis and the three coastal axes, to achieve balanced development of the national territory.

The 4th CNTP has been revised after President Roh came into power in 2003. The Revised 4th CNTP (2006-2020) has been oriented towards the multi-nucleus networked spatial structure of the national territory, which complements the integrated open-door development axis of the 4th CNTP with such projects for balanced development as the multi-functional administrative city, and the relocation of public

6

agencies outside the Capital Region of Korea and related Innovative Cities. Since 2008, President Lee’s administration has been trying to revise the Revised 4th CNTP in order to make the plan based on green growth and ‘5+2’ area-wide economic region.

The 1st to 3rd CNTP played a role as the blue-print plan to contribute to the development of the national territory. But the 4th CNTP and its revised version have begun to function as a framework. In other words, both of them have presented a framework under which the lower-tier plans have been set up and implemented. Concerning the CNTP’s function as a framework, Article 18(1) of the Standard Act for the Korean National Territory (hereafter SAKNT) is to be considered: “…the mayors of metropolitan cities and the governors of provinces shall make what the CNTP presents reflected in their policies and plans, and shall set up their own action programmes to implement the CNTP…and submit the programmes to the Minister of Land, Transport & Maritime Affairs.”

7

<Figure 4> Open and Integration Axes of Territorial Development

Nonetheless the CNTP is still of the centralistic and top-down nature in that the central government builds up and implements the plan. To be sure, the planning process makes the regional-specific interests taken into consideration and allows diverse stakeholders to take part in the process. For example, Article 9(2) of SAKNT strongly suggests that the Minister of Land, Transport & Maritime Affairs should ask the mayors of metropolitan cities and the governors of provinces to send in the policies and projects they want to be included in the CNTP to the minister. Furthermore, the task force organized to revise the 4th CNTP tried to enable a wide variety of stakeholders’ participation. The participation of the regional interest groups and stakeholders has yet to be expanded.

8

It is indubitable that the CNTP has so far supported the industrialization and economic growth of Korea. However, the setting-up and implementation of the CNTP has to be changed, given that democracy has matured, local autonomy has been settled, and quality of life has been spotlighted. The CNTP has begun to function as a framework as well as combined development with environment protection. Additionally, the CNTP is in the middle of the transition from a plan of centralist and top-down nature to a plan based on the effective participation of regional interest groups and stakeholders.

3.2. Metropolitan planning and cooperation

Korea is managing the Metropolitan plan system through regional planning which covers Korean mega cities2. Metropolitan planning presents guidelines to city and provincial planning. Its main objectives are to link their spatial structure and functions, conserve the environment and to systematically promote Metropolitan facilities. Local governments3 drive the planning process as the main bodies and after public hearing, hearing opinions from the local assembly and getting review from the urban planning committee, the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Marine Affairs finally approves the plan. The Metropolitan plan as the upper plan to urban master plan and urban management plan, carries its significance by presenting guidelines for them.

The first Metropolitan Plan was established to adjust “Green Belt(Restricted Development Zone)” around 6 mega cities which was one of the president election pledges in 1997. The metropolitan plan was established with the target year 2020 and contributed to national planning in many 2 “Metropolitan Development Plan” is another plan running individually from the Metropolitan Plan. This plan generalizes the necessary development projects in the Metropolitan development zone. 10zones are designate with an area of 44,632㎢(2005)3 Ministry of Land, Transport, Marine Affairs can participate if it’s necessary.

9

ways.First, the 6 mega-regions’ Metropolitan Plan became a

beginning of framework planning instead of a blueprint plan in regional planning. In the meantime, the whole planning contents were expressed into ‘a conceptual map’ and made the lower plans inflexible. However, the metropolitan plan had chosen the method of presenting guidelines to related lower plans. The main principles of metropolitan planning such as scheme of spatial structure, metropolitan land use, green and landscape management, metropolitan transportation, metropolitan supply and facilities, disaster prevention, environment conservation, and Green Belt adjustment, gave adaptability to lower planning.

Second, the first Metropolitan Plan attempts to shift from command planning to policy planning. In other words, the plan was established by communicated policies between the central and local government instead of central government’s commands. The driving bodies of the plan mapped out the lower plans according to their different conditions by policy statement and improved the system.

Third, the Metropolitan Plan gave opportunity for various bodies to participate in the planning process by discussing the details from the beginning. A planning manual was drawn from the beginning and gave opportunities to propose issues of the Metropolitan Plan. Specially, in the process of adjusting Green Belt, several meetings were held with the dwellers and NGOs in the district and agreed with the designation principles and method.

3. Implementation of national projects and regional cooperation

When national projects evoked regional interests and bitter confrontation, the basic approach for implementation changed. Central government in the past chose the location

10

and prepared for the development plan unilaterally. Now the approach has totally changed. Principles and criteria for location choice are esteemed.  Procedures as clear as glass and are required to elicit the cooperation of residents.  Site location processes for  the disposal of Gyeongju low- or mid-level radioactive waste (Gyeongju Case) and the new administrative capital project are typical cases presenting this paradigm shift.

3.1. Gyeongju Case4

Central government had tried to locate a disposal site for radioactive waste 9 times after 1986, but has failed. The process for the location choice was secretly conducted and the central government announced the final site for construction. The process caused fierce opposition of residents and environmental groups. As the ministry handling the task in 1997 changed, the approach also changed from unilateral nomination and announcement to open competition. Though central government suggested a financial supporting program total amount of 300 million US dollars, it failed to select a location because of no entry. The Buan mayor in 2003 suggested an application document without residents' agreement and the central ministry announced the final site. The unilateral process caused serious conflict between residents in Buan and the central government. The prime minister finally announced an invalidity because the location choice process dissatisfied with social consensus.

Because of these problems, location selection procedures in 2004 transformed into preliminary application for free competition. As a result, 7 local governments applied a total of 10 sites as  preliminary sites. But any government that did not apply through the main ballot required for 4 Lim, 2007

11

residents ballet. A central government organized 'site selection committee' was created in 2005 to guarantee fairness and openness in location selection procedures and citizen participation. In addition, a special government act created a "special supporting act for on-site disposal of low or mid level radioactive waste". Minister in June announced on-site selection and conducted the application process with two stages.

A mayor can submit an application in the first stage under the local assembly agreement. The residents’ ballot is required to submit the second application. 4 local governments submitted the application, and as Gyeongju gained the highest approval rate, it was selected as the final site.

3.2. Site selection for new administrative capital

Central government announced the relocation plan to move central government offices in the Seoul Metropolitan Region into a new administrative capital in the Chungcheong region.  This project has a potential to cause political and economic conflict. Central government in the past chose optimum sites for construction secretly, announced the final site and confirmed the result without the consent by local government and residents. But reasonable and clear criteria and procedures in site selection for the new administrative capital became the main issue.

Central government organized the "Assessment committee for site selection of new administrative capital". Committee members conducted a fair and reasonable assessment based on the various data, site surveys, and individual experiences. 4 sites were selected and Yeongi-Gongju region became the final site. It is important to reach an agreement with 3 regional governments. These process later became an model site selection in Korea high speed

12

railroad (KTX) station and regional government relocation projects. 

3.3 Implications

Successful implementation in national projects gives a lesson on how to conduct a regional plan and cooperation in the future. The site selection project should not be a blueprint plan but instead a fair and open  process-based framework. It should be not an option but a requirement. Rather than a top-down approach, consensus building and mutual cooperation should become a more important topic. Now these methods have become a new approach in Korea's regional planning.

4. Challenges of cooperative plan for the Capital Region

4.1 Present conditions of Capital Region Plan

From the end of 1960’s, the Korean government strived to control the urbanization and industrialization in Seoul and Seoul Metropolitan Area (hereafter, Capital region). In 1982, enacting the ‘Capital Region Readjustment Planning Act’, facilities that caused population induction such as manufacturing facilities and universities were regulated to locate outside the SMA. In 1984, ‘the first Capital Region Readjustment Plan’ based on this act was established. Population induction facilities were regulated according to each of the 5 zones presented in the plan. The Capital region readjustment plan is a priority plan against any land use plan or development plan in the capital region.

After 1994, the Act was revised to relieve regulations by globalization and regionalization. 5 regulated zones were simplified to 3 regulated zones: congestion restriction zone,

13

growth management zone and environmental conservation zone. In the third Capital Region Readjustment Plan (2006-2020) in 2006, the development control according to the 3 regulated zones was maintained.

Growth Management Zone

Growth Management Zone

Nature Conservation Zone

Overpopulated constraint Zone

<Figure 5> Sub-division zones of Capital Region

These regulations of the Capital Region Readjustment Plan shows that the plan is only a blueprint and command plan. Even though there are new demands for capital region development in specific zones, there aren’t enough possibilities to be discussed. The subjects and challenges that can be discussed in the plan are only the ones which

14

are decided from the beginning.In the 1990’s the capital region readjustment plan has

presented the question of the degree of its actual effect to curb population and industry concentration, and whether the plan is appropriate for the promotion of regional competitiveness in the globalization era. Also, the capital region readjustment plan became a conflict between the provincial governors of the capital region who assert the demolition of the plan and the provincial governors who advocate for the existing capital region readjustment plan.5

On the other hand, if regulation of a specific area in the Capital region should be relived, social problems emerge such as land price rises because of the potential irrationality that land use management had from the early development era. In other words, regional planning in capital region should be revised to prevent social conflicts and not to weaken national competitiveness.

4.2 Plan-based Management for the Capital Region

From 2003, the participatory government has made a multifunction administrative city and relocation of public agencies to promote the balanced national development. At the same time, the government has considered to shift the capital region policy from the restriction of development to the qualitative development of the Capital region.

The government aims to make the Capital region into a competitive region in the world and to create livable places with high quality of living standards through the improvement of institutional basis. (MOCT, 2005b)

The ground rule for the regime shift is that the balanced growth of the nation is a prerequisite for an easing of the restrictions in the Capitol region. In 2005, a report 5 In Nov. 30, 2008, ‘Regional Balanced Development Council’ which consists of 13 provincial governments outside of SMA and 12 members of National Assembly, issued a joint statement to deal with the regulation relive in SMA. The Council argued to stop the SMA regulation relive process and tried to carry out a “local development first – rational regulation in SMA later” promise.(KyungBuk Press)

15

(Research on development strategies of the Korean Capital region) has proposed a shift into the plan-led development and readjustment of the 3 regional zones over the mid- and long-term. The third Capital region plan (2006-2020) also has officially proposed the regime shift to plan-led management in conjunction with the construction of a multifunction at administrative city and relocation of public agencies.

New paradigms for the Capital region are necessary in order to succeed in a regime switch from the planning system of the development era of the past 40 years to the plan-led management system of the future.

First, as for planning substantive elements, the new system has to overcome the blueprint-style planning that has been continued from the 1960’s. It has not to be regional planning that reinforces the zoning system, but a system that provides a framework to discuss subordinate plans, policies, and programs. Consequently, land use management should be free from the rigidness of the zoning control system. If current zoning-based planning (or development) continues, plan-led management would not be possible from an unusual windfall gain through zoning change of a specific region.6

Second, as for planning agencies, the present planning system has consisted of one-sided regulation that is not suitable to the needs of governance such as decentralization and democracy. The Capital region plan should be not a command (or top-down) plan from a central government, but a policy plan from coordination between central government and local governments. In fact unilateral command from central government only creates backlash of local governments and weakens practical actions.

Third, as for the planning process, consensus between

6 In Korea, ‘The Public Concept of Land Ownership’ system was tried by the support of the citizens in 1990.

16

interested parties for what qualitative development seeks is important. Making issues through sufficient discussion should not be closed and/or fixed beforehand, but instead open to the public. In addition, the participation of the non-Capital region is needed in the discussion of the regime change of the Capital region because the shift to plan-led management concerns the planning issue of not only the Capital region but also balanced national development.

In conclusion, the competitiveness of the Capital region such as the qualitative improvement of living conditions, sustainable development, and organized development management would demand new paradigms of plan-led management that matches the socio-economic change of living conditions, decentralization, democracy, and governance.

4.3 Tasks toward a Plan-Based Management System

A plan-led management system is defined as ‘reasonable management of activities such as maintenance, development, conservation of land and facilities based on the plan’, and ‘flexible management of structure and land use in the region with solid vision and strategy’. It includes management of socio-economic activities with respect to location and the scale of development. It is fundamentally value-neutral by reasonably establishing a regime which provides a foundation for establishment of plans, land use management, and development. For successful establishment of the system, three conditions are needed.

First, public trust of the planning system for the metropolitan area. Without this, public consensus cannot be made, and for this reason current metropolitan area policy raises conflict. Consistency of the policy is needed in principle, description, and procedure; and the policy framework based on public consensus and trust is needed. New policy framework is needed that clears inconsistency

17

that has been inherent on current policy for over 40 years and gets public consensus on the plan for the metropolitan area.

The second thing needed is the establishment of the organization consisting of various interest groups. The plan for the metropolitan area needs to be regionally-oriented rather than nationally-oriented. The process of planning that involves various interest groups is important. It can be achieved, for instance, with formation of a forum. The plan cannot be made of packages of traditional regulations. Active participation and the process of seeking strategic objectives that clearly state regional planning issues can support the potential for successful development. 

The third thing is the rationality of the plan. Priority-setting between plans, vertical and horizontal consistency, and a proper system to reach objectives through consensus-making. For the implementation stage, the solid rules for land use management that support the relationship between urban planning, land use management and development are needed. For this, reforms of related policies are required.  5. Conclusion

Studying the new trends of the national territorial and regional plan, we can notice that regional planning is changing to a plan which presents a framework for lower plans or policies and for system improvement. Also, different from the past command planning, it shows cooperation between the bodies in the planning procedure. Various issues are discussed openly between the participatory bodies instead of discussing issues limited and settled in the plan.

<Table 2> Summary of Korean regional planningFunction Planning Model National

Territorial PlanMetropolit

an PlanNational Projects

SMA Readjustment Plan

Effectivation of Blueprint →Framework ○ ○ ○ Blueprint

18

planning resultsCooperation between bodies

Command→Policies △ ○ ○ Command

Proposing Issues Closed→open - ○ - ClosedExecution ofurban planning

Vertical up-down → horizontal triangle

- ○ - Conflict

However, the Korean SMA Readjustment plan is still bringing up social conflicts by blueprint and command planning, and closed proposals for new subjects. The irrational land use management system is another basic problem. Reviewing the new trends of regional planning, the SMA readjustment plan must be revised. In Korea, the management of the SMA plan has come up to a periodical issue for social coordination and national competitiveness. Korea must improve the irrational urban management planning system including the zoning system left in the development era and move one step further to become an advanced country.

Bibliography

1. Korean Version

Ministry of Construction and Transportation,(2006), A study for Capital Region Readjustment Plan Establishment(Summary Report)

Ministry of Construction and Transportation,(2005a. 2005), Annual Report on National Land Planning and Utilization.

Ministry of Construction and Transportation,(2005b), A study for Capital Region development,(Summary Report)

Ministry of Construction and Transportation,(2006), The 4th Comprehensive National Territorial Plan, report no. 4.

Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Seoul Development Institute, Incheon

19

Development Institute, Gyeonggi Research Institute, A study to improve Capital Region Plan Management.

Ministry of Land ,Transport, Marine Affairs, Seoul Metropolis, Incheon, Gyeonggido, (2008.7), 2020 Capital Region Metropolitan Plan.

Ministry of Construction and Transportation(2006), The 4th National Territorial Plan, report no. 4.

Kim, Y.,(1999), Regional Planning Theory(Korean Version), BeobmunsaKorea Planners Association,(2008), Urban Planning Theory, 5th edition, Bosonggak Korean Government,(2005), Revision of the 4th Comprehensive National Territorial

revised Plan, report no. 4.Lim, J.,(2007), Review of the Process for Detemining the location of Low &

Intermidiate Level Radiactive Waste Disposal Site from Governance Stand Point, Seoul National University.

Park, J.,(1999), A Studyon the Guidelines of the City-Region Planning, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.

2. English Version

Bryson, J. & Crosby, B.,(1993), "Policy Planning & the Design of Forums, Arenas and Courts, Environment and Planning B 20(2), 175-194.

Dewar M. , Epstein D.,(2007), Planning for "Megaregions" in the United States, Journal of Planning Architecture.

Faludi, A.,(1973), Planning Theory, Pergamon Press.Friedmann J.,(1973), Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning, Anchor

Press/ Doubleday.Ministry of Construction & Transportation, KRIHS, the Fourth Comprehensive

Territorial Plan in Korea(2000-2020), Government of the Republic of Korea,2001.

Park, Jae Gil,(2003), Improvement of Land Use Control and Zoning System, Global City Region: Integrated Planning & Sustainable Policies of Korea(edited by Kyu-Bang Lee), KRIHS Hanul Academy Publishing Company.

Park, Jae Gil,(2004), Governance Change in Urban Land Development System in Korea, Asian Approach toward Sustainable Urban Regeneration,(cSur International Workshop Proceedings, 4-7, Sep., 2004, by the Univ. of Tokyo), 333-340.

20