Participatory Risk Governance for Seoul, South Korea’s Flood Risk Management

Bokjin Ro; Gregg Garfin

doi:10.1007/s13753-024-00552-y

Volume 15 Issue 3

Jun. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2024 > 15(3): 317-331

Bokjin Ro, Gregg Garfin. Participatory Risk Governance for Seoul, South Korea’s Flood Risk Management[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(3): 317-331. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00552-y

Citation:

Bokjin Ro, Gregg Garfin. Participatory Risk Governance for Seoul, South Korea’s Flood Risk Management[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(3): 317-331. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00552-y

Citation:

PDF

Participatory Risk Governance for Seoul, South Korea’s Flood Risk Management

doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00552-y

Bokjin Ro^{1,2
,
,},
Gregg Garfin³

1. School of Geography, Development and Environment, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA;
2. Interdisciplinary Program for Disaster, Crisis and Risk Management, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16419, Republic of Korea;
3. School of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

Accepted Date: 2024-03-01

Available Online: 2024-10-26

Publish Date: 2024-04-23

Abstract

Abstract

Risk governance is a widely used framework in natural and societal risk management research. Risks from natural hazards in urban areas call for the establishment of rigorous and participatory urban risk governance. In this study, we examined participatory risk governance (PRG) of flood risk management (FRM) in Seoul, South Korea. We conducted key informant interviews and implemented a survey with citizens, to explore perceptions of flood risks and risk management, and to examine prospects for improving PRG in Seoul. We found a gap between the perceptions of key informants and citizens. Key informants believed that citizens’ low awareness of flood risks hinders PRG. Yet our research found that citizens’ risk awareness was not low, and risk awareness may not be the main barrier to participation in PRG. Instead, we found that citizens lacked knowledge of FRM actions, and they assigned government bodies a high level of responsibility for FRM, compared to the level of responsibility that citizens assigned to themselves. Moreover, the actors involved in FRM tended not to trust each other, which implies a lack of mutual understanding. To increase the effectiveness of PRG, we suggest a polycentric governance structure anchored by a leading actor group, and active promotion of the participation of actors at multiple levels of governance. Communication between government and citizen participants, designed to foster improved understanding and recognition of one another’s roles and contributions to FRM, will enhance trust and improve the implementation of PRG in Seoul.
- Citizen participation,
- Flood risk management,
- Participatory risk governance,
- Risk awareness,
- South Korea,
- Urban flood risk

FullText(HTML)

References(62)

References

[1]	ABD (The Asia Business Daily). 2019. Keep the reputation, “Zero flood damage Guro”. https://view.asiae.co.kr/article/2019061623391592578. Accessed 11 Mar 2023.
[2]	Alzahrani, L., W. Al-Karaghouli, and V. Weerakkody. 2018. Investigating the impact of citizens’ trust toward the successful adoption of e-government: A multigroup analysis of gender, age, and Internet experience. Information Systems Management 35(2): 124-146.
[3]	Aoki, N. 2018. Sequencing and combining participation in urban planning: The case of tsunami-ravaged Onagawa Town, Japan. Cities 72: 226-236.
[4]	Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-224.
[5]	Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2010. Risk management and governance: Concepts, guidelines and applications. Berlin: Springer.
[6]	Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2020. Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks. Journal of Risk Research 23(9): 1121-1134.
[7]	Boholm, Å., H. Corvellec, and M. Karlsson. 2012. The practice of risk governance: Lessons from the field. Journal of Risk Research 15(1): 1-20.
[8]	Bradford, R.A., J.J. O’Sullivan, I.M. van der Craats, J. Krywkow, P. Rotko, J. Aaltonen, M. Bonaiuto, and S. de Dominicis et al. 2012. Risk perception-Issues for flood management in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12(7): 2299-2309.
[9]	Cambridge Dictionary. n.d. Self-help. In Cambridge dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/self-help. Accessed 21 Apr 2023.
[10]	Chatfield, A.T., and C.G. Reddick. 2018. All hands on deck to tweet #sandy: Networked governance of citizen coproduction in turbulent times. Government Information Quarterly 35(2): 259-272.
[11]	Corfee-Morlot, J., I. Cochran, S. Hallegatte, and P.J. Teasdale. 2011. Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change 104(1): 169-197.
[12]	de Marchi, B. 2003. Public participation and risk governance. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 171-176.
[13]	Dieperink, C., D.L.T. Hegger, M.H.N. Bakker, Z.W. Kundzewicz, C. Green, and P.P.J. Driessen. 2016. Recurrent governance challenges in the implementation and alignment of flood risk management strategies: A review. Water Resources Management 30(13): 4467-4481.
[14]	Djalante, R., C. Holley, F. Thomalla, and M. Carnegie. 2013. Pathways for adaptive and integrated disaster resilience. Natural Hazards 69(3): 2105-2135.
[15]	Djalante, R., F. Thomalla, M.S. Sinapoy, and M. Carnegie. 2012. Building resilience to natural hazards in Indonesia: Progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action. Natural Hazards 62(3): 779-803.
[16]	Dordi, T., D. Henstra, and J. Thistlethwaite. 2022. Flood risk management and governance: A bibliometric review of the literature. Journal of Flood Risk Management 15: Article e12797.
[17]	Driessen, P.P.J., D.L.T. Hegger, Z.W. Kundzewicz, H.F.M.W. van Rijswick, A. Crabbé, C. Larrue, P. Matczak, M. Pettersson, et al. 2018. Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change. Water 10(11): Article 1595.
[18]	Geaves, L.H., and E.C. Penning-Rowsell. 2015. “Contractual” and “cooperative” civic engagement: The emergence and roles of “flood action groups” in England and Wales. Ambio 44(5): 440-451.
[19]	Graham, J., B. Amos, and T. Plumptre. 2003. Principles for good governance in the 21st century. Policy Brief No. 15. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN011842.pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 2017.
[20]	Hegger, D.L.T., P.P.J. Driessen, C. Dieperink, M. Wiering, G.T. Tom Raadgever, and H.F.M.W. van Rijswick. 2014. Assessing stability and dynamics in flood risk governance: An empirically illustrated research approach. Water Resources Management 28(12): 4127-4142.
[21]	Heintz, M.D., M. Hagemeier-Klose, and K. Wagner. 2012. Towards a risk governance culture in flood policy—Findings from the implementation of the “floods directive” in Germany. Water 4(1): 135-156.
[22]	Hernández-Moreno, G., and I. Alcántara-Ayala. 2017. Landslide risk perception in Mexico: A research gate into public awareness and knowledge. Landslides 14(1): 351-371.
[23]	Hoffimann, E., H. Barros, and A.I. Ribeiro. 2017. Socioeconomic inequalities in green space quality and accessibility—Evidence from a southern European city. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(8): Article 916.
[24]	Huck, A., J. Monstadt, and P. Driessen. 2020. Building urban and infrastructure resilience through connectivity: An institutional perspective on disaster risk management in Christchurch, New Zealand. Cities 98: Article 102573.
[25]	Hutter, G. 2016. Collaborative governance and rare floods in urban regions—Dealing with uncertainty and surprise. Environmental Science & Policy 55: 302-308.
[26]	Jang, L.J., J.J. Wang, D. Paton, and N.Y. Tsai. 2016. Cross-cultural comparisons between the earthquake preparedness models of Taiwan and New Zealand. Disasters 40(2): 327-345.
[27]	Johnson, C.L., and S.J. Priest. 2008. Flood risk management in England: A changing landscape of risk responsibility?. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(4): 513-525.
[28]	Ju, S.H. 2012. The construction direction for effective disaster management governance: Focusing on Woomyeonsan Landslide. Korean Comparative Government Review 16(1): 295-322.
[29]	Kim, Y.M. 2017. The study on local government’s disaster safety governance using big data. Journal of Digital Convergence 15(1): 61-67.
[30]	Kim, J., H.H. Sung, and G. Choi. 2013. Spatial patterns of urban flood vulnerability in Seoul. Journal of the Korean Association of Regional Geographers 19(4): 615-626 (in Korean).
[31]	Klinke, A., and O. Renn. 2021. The coming of age of risk governance. Risk Analysis 41(3): 544-557.
[32]	KMA (Korea Meteorological Administration). 2022. White paper of Jangma. Government Publications Registration No. 11-1360000-000085-14. Seoul: Korea Meteorological Administration.
[33]	Komendantova, N., R. Mrzyglocki, A. Mignan, B. Khazai, F. Wenzel, A. Patt, and K. Fleming. 2014. Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: Feedback from civil protection stakeholders. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 8: 50-67.
[34]	Kyunghyang Shinmun. 2020. A report on semi-underground units. http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_storytelling/2020/underground/. Accessed 1 Apr 2023.
[35]	Lindell, M.K., and D.J. Whitney. 2000. Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis 20(1): 13-25.
[36]	Lukasiewicz, A., and S. Dovers. 2018. The emerging imperative of disaster justice. In Proceedings of the 2018 Bushfire and Natural Hazard CRC & AFAC Conference, 5-8 September 2018, Perth, Australia.
[37]	MacAskill, K. 2019. Public interest and participation in planning and infrastructure decisions for disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 39: Article 101200.
[38]	Mees, H., A. Crabbé, M. Alexander, M. Kaufmann, S. Bruzzone, L. Lévy, and J. Lewandowski. 2016. Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: Insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecology and Society 21(3): Article 7.
[39]	Nye, M., S. Tapsell, and C. Twigger-Ross. 2011. New social directions in UK flood risk management: Moving towards flood risk citizenship?. Journal of Flood Risk Management 4(4): 288-297.
[40]	Park, C.K. 2013. The cause of flooding in the Gangnam station area and recommendation for flood prevention measures. Magazine of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation 13(3): 67-72.
[41]	Peng, L., J. Tan, W. Deng, and Y. Liu. 2020. Farmers’ participation in community-based disaster management: The role of trust, place attachment and self-efficacy. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51: Article 101895.
[42]	Putnam, R.D. 1995. Turning in, turning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics 28(4): 664-683.
[43]	Renn, O., and P. Graham. 2006. Risk governance: Towards an integrative approach. Le Vaud, Switzerland: International Risk Governance Council.
[44]	Renn, O., and K. Walker. 2008. Global risk governance: Concept and practice using the IRGC framework. Amsterdam: Springer.
[45]	Rhodes, R. 1996. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies 44(4): 652-667.
[46]	Rhodes, R.A.W. 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies 28(8): 1243-1264.
[47]	Schweizer, P.J. 2021. Systemic risks—Concepts and challenges for risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 24(1): 78-93.
[48]	Shi, P.J. 2012. On the role of government in integrated disaster risk governance—Based on practices in China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 3(3): 139-146.
[49]	Simin Ilbo. 2016. Gwangjin-gu, zero worry about flooding, in spite of torrential rainfall. http://www.siminilbo.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=466425. Accessed 1 Apr 2021.
[50]	SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government). 2010. Zero concerns of flood risk. Defense measures in full swing. https://www.seoul.go.kr/news/news_report.do#view/5465?tr_code=snews. Accessed 16 May 2023 (in Korean).
[51]	SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government). 2013. A study on establishing vision strategy for flood risk management in Seoul. Seoul: SMG.
[52]	SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government). 2016. Comprehensive plan for flood risk reduction in Seoul. Seoul: SMG.
[53]	SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government). 2018a. Comprehensive water management plan for the Seoul metropolitan city. Seoul: Flood Control Safety Division/SMG.
[54]	SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government). 2018b. Seoul-K-water, Launching smart urban flood management technology system. https://www.seoul.go.kr/news/news_report.do#view/273764?tr_code=snews. Accessed 16 May 2023 (in Korean).
[55]	SMG (Seoul Metropolitan Government). 2020. Seoul, improving flood risk management response completeness through the efforts over the last 10 years. https://www.seoul.go.kr/news/news_report.do#view/316282?tr_code=snews. Accessed 16 May 2023 (in Korean).
[56]	Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50(155): 17-28.
[57]	Sung, J.H., H.J. Baek, and H.S. Kang. 2012. The assessment of future flood vulnerability for the Seoul region. Korean Wetlands Society 14(3): 341-352.
[58]	Tierney, K. 2012. Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 341-363.
[59]	van Asselt, M.B.A., and O. Renn. 2011. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 14(4): 431-449.
[60]	Vij, S. 2023. Polycentric disaster governance in a federalising Nepal: Interplay between people, bureaucracy and political leadership. Policy Sciences 56(4): 755-776.
[61]	Wiering, M., M. Kaufmann, H. Mees, T. Schellenberger, W. Ganzevoort, D.L.T. Hegger, C. Larrue, and P. Matczak. 2017. Varieties of flood risk governance in Europe: How do countries respond to driving forces and what explains institutional change?. Global Environmental Change 44: 15-26.
[62]	Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 1-24.