South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth

JCIT-01538; No of Pages 8 Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth Jae-Seung Lee, Jeong-won Kim Korea University, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 23 February 2015 Received in revised form 25 September 2015 Accepted 27 October 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Energy transition Low carbon green city South Korea Green growth Renewable energy

a b s t r a c t Environmental and energy problems confronting South Korea brought a paradigm shift in the urban development toward “low-carbon green city” since the declaration of “Green Growth Strategy” in 2008. The South Korean governments set the goal to increase urban energy self-sufficiency through renewable energy generation and implemented various urban energy projects. However, the outcome of those urban green energy projects showed a varying degree of success. While the top-down approach led by the government facilitated the spread of urban green energy strategies in a short period of time, it also showed some drawbacks, such as the gap of willingness between the central government and the local governments and low level of community involvement. Although the importance of citizen participation in the transition to urban energy self-sufficiency has been emphasized in a rhetoric, energy projects that residents played a key role were rare in Korea. The urban energy transition in the low carbon green city projects needs to be supplemented by reinforced bottom-up approaches with the momentum from local governments as well as active citizen participation during the planning and implementation process. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Cities are major consumers of energy and resources, which cause a series of issues such as energy depletion, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, contamination of air and water and destruction of urban forests and ecosystems (Beatley, 2007; Campbell, 1996; Dekay & O'Brien, 2001; Fook & Gang, 2010; Low et al., 2005; Rees, 1997). Environmental degradation and the consequent decrease in quality of life caused by growth-oriented urban development brought a necessity to pursue a more sustainable urban energy strategy that combines energy, environment, economy and society (Beatley & Manning, 1997; Kline, 2000). Furthermore, carbon control began to be incorporated in urban management as concern over climate change grew (Bulkeley, 2010; Jonas et al., 2011; While et al., 2010). The concept of ‘green city’ has received more attention and it includes not only ecologically sound and clean environment but also energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies. South Korea is the 8th biggest energy consumers in the world as of 2012 (IEA, 2014a), and energy issues have been one of policy priorities as it has long been dependent on imported fossil fuels to sustain its economy. Overseas dependence of primary energy was 95.7% in 2013 (MOTIE & KEEI, 2014a; 2014b). The share of fossil fuels in South Korea's primary energy supply and electricity generation reached respectively 85.7% and 66.8%, and the electricity was mostly consumed by industry (54.1%) and residential and commercial sector (39.4%) (Fig. 1). At the same time, South Korea is facing an increasing demand

for carbon reduction as the 7th biggest CO2 emitter in the world (IEA, 2014b). Uneven energy and electricity self-sufficiency1 among cities is also cited as a challenge to South Korea. While energy consumption in capital area (Seoul metropolitan area) accounted for approximately 36.6% of total electricity consumption, most of the power plants are located in southern regions. Electricity self-sufficiency of seven metropolitan cities in South Korea ranged from 1.7% to 337.2% (Hyundai Research Institute, 2013). As low-carbon society has emerged as an important concept, the energy issues began to have an inextricable linkage with urban development (Bulkeley, 2010; Jonas et al., 2011; While et al., 2010). The declaration of “Green Growth Strategy” in 2008 was a turning point for South Korea to accelerate the urban energy transition with comprehensive policy measures of sustainable development (Lim, 2011; Park & Kim, 2013). In this context, this paper explores the evolution of South Korea's green city strategy with a specific focus on urban green energy policies and discusses its major characteristics. The South Korean governments adopted the green city strategies to increase urban environmental quality while reducing carbon emission and energy dependency on imported fossil fuels. Based on the review of the first five years of green growth, this paper also assesses the policy outcome of lowcarbon green city and related urban energy transition. Another focus

1

Electricity self-sufficiency = total electricity production/total electricity consumption.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011 0264-2751/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

2

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Energy mix and electricity generation and consumption in South Korea (2013). Source: MOTIE & KEEI (2014a): 174–175; MOTIE & KEEI (2014b): 31, 44

Table 1 Financing plan for green growth (2009–2013) (Unit: trillion KRW). Strategy

2009

2010–2011

2012–2013

Growth rate

Climate change adaptation and energy independence Creation of new engines for economic growth Improvement of the quality of life and enhancement of international standing Total

8.6 4.8 5.2 17.5

29.2 10.7 10.5 48.3

19.2 13.1 12.2 41.5

14.0% 9.4% 3.6% 10.2%

Source: Presidential Committee on Green Growth (2009b).

of this study will be given to the central–local government relations in pursuing low-carbon green city as it will reveal the characteristics and consequences of top-down approach of green growth strategies. The green growth strategies could spread nationally within a short period with an attractive fiscal incentive but also accompanied the gap of willingness between the central and local governments as well as lack of community involvement. This paper consists of the following sections: the next section surveys the literatures dealing with the conditions and elements of urban energy transition. The third section discusses the introduction of lowcarbon green cities in terms of` South Korea's green growth strategy. The fourth section reviews the quantitative outcome of low-carbon green cities under the green growth framework and evaluates the nature of central-local government relations in pursuing these projects. The cases of seven metropolitan cities will be analysed in this part. The conclusion summarizes the key finding of this research and suggests future tasks for urban green energy projects in South Korea. 2. Elements of urban energy transition The fossil fuel era enabled modern cities to expand and prosper, but consequently made them witness the “brink of a dual calamity”: one posed by finite fuel supplies and the other by its combustion (Droege, 2008: 10). Inevitable depletion of fossil fuel reserves and increasing concern about climate change caused by fossil fuels have created a demand for more sustainable, cleaner and efficient energy sources (Rae & Bradley, 2012). Many cities have tried to step on the path of energy transition from conventional energy supply and consumption patterns to a new sustainable energy system of renewable energy, distributed generation and citizen-participatory energy governance (Choi, 2013: 654). In this regard, energy transition projects to achieve energy self-sufficiency and to cope with climate change have been the main elements of green city, which enable a less energy-intensive way of life (Rae & Bradley,

2012; Lehmann, 2008). The transition to more sustainable energy systems requires a wide scope of engineering disciplines and technology has been regarded as a key to successful urban energy transition (Rae & Bradley, 2012). A group of scholars emphasized that active community involvement is also a prerequisite for the success of urban energy transition (Allen et al., 2012; Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Leem, 2011; Musall & Kuik, 2011; Park, 2013; Walker et al., 2007; Warren & McFadyen, 2010). Although central governments play a leading role in national energy governance to manage energy supply plan, power grid and pricing schemes, local governments also have crucial roles in setting regional agenda (Schreurs, 2008) and implementing the projects reflecting local context (Musall & Kuik, 2011). Especially, energy transition to renewable energies involves decentralized, distributed generation and necessitates close cooperation with the local governments. Thus, the task of local governments in energy transition is “to facilitate compliance with regulations and to take adequate account of local specificities, problems and endogenous innovation potentials as well as to combine solutions to environmental problems with economic benefits (Monstadt, 2007: 336)”. Local governments are interested in urban energy transition projects for many reasons. First, many urban energy transition projects aim at efficiency improvement and the proliferation of renewable energy supply systems, which have been emphasized as counter-measures to deal with climate change and energy insecurity over the past few years (Allen et al., 2012; Droege, 2008; Schreurs, 2008). Second, some local governments begin urban energy transition projects to seek economic incentives for their investment in renewable energies. The economic benefits include job creation and attraction of manufacturers, lower energy costs, revenue generation and potential advantages in the climate or energy market that pioneers may enjoy (Byrne et al., 2007; Walker, 2008; Walker et al., 2007). Furthermore, the importance of leadership and policy diffusion is stated as factors to lead the involvement of local governments (Schreurs, 2008). Earlier studies also showed

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

3

Table 2 Budget for New And Renewable Energy Dissemination Program (Unit: million KRW).

Special Accounts for Energy and Resources-related Projects Electrical Industry Foundation Fund Total

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

41,000 76,000 117,000

272,125 175,550 447,675

159,525 321,652 481,177

121,700 392,800 514,500

197,000 445,000 642,000

181,596 405,000 586,596

127,900 372,100 500,000

0 470,420 470,420

Source: The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea (2008–2015).

that citizen participation was a key element for successful urban energy transition projects and pointed out community ownership as a more realistic and important factor to attract citizen participation (Musall & Kuik, 2011; Rae & Bradley, 2012; Walker, 2008; Walker & DevineWright, 2008; Warren & McFadyen, 2010). However, local governments are not always active on the urban energy transition projects. Since urban energy transition projects involve many complexities (Walker, 2008), some factors inhibit local governments from participating in those projects or make divergences from the central government. Such barriers can be found both at the institutional and personal levels. The lack of accurate information and lack of proper institutional access for communication and coordination are the most common problems in the community-level energy project (Allen et al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2008). Local officers and the residents often do not have sufficient data on the energy capacity, opportunities and benefits from the project (Allen et al., 2012; Walker, 2008; Walker et al., 2007; Bulkeley & Betsill, 2010). Financial constraints are also big obstacles for community participation particularly when the governments do not invest or allocate sufficient subsidies. This is more problematic when government guidelines are uncertain or inconsistent (Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Warren & Birnie, 2009). In addition, a barrier may result from personal and psychological factors which appear in

Table 3 Energy-related green growth projects in metropolitan cities. City

No. of projects

Seoul

42

Busan

67

Daegu

29

Incheon

34

Gwangju

48

Daejeon

72

Ulsan

42

Examples • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Fuel cell generation system Renewable portfolio standard Construction of Energy zero house Electric taxi Carbon point system Installation of LED lights Intelligent green house Carbon emission trading system pilot project Carbon emission trading system pilot project Carbon footprint monitoring Biogas plants Green school project Low-carbon green village Waste energy recovery Carbon point system Carbon fund for public interests Energy voucher

Table 4 Energy mix and energy self-sufficiency of South Korea. Composition of primary energy (%) Coal

Oil

LNG

Hydro

Nuclear

Renewable

Overseas dependence (%)

25.2 28.2 28.2 29.2 30.2 29.1 29.2

44.6 42.1 42.1 39.5 38.0 38.1 37.8

14.7 13.9 13.9 16.3 16.7 18.0 18.7

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6

13.0 13.1 13.1 12.1 12.0 11.4 10.4

2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.9 3.2

96.6 96.4 96.4 96.5 96.5 96.0 95.7

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) & Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI). (2014a).

the form of popular support for green energy (Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Byrne et al., 2007). Citizens may be reluctant to involve in the energy transition projects due to lack of interest (Allen et al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2008), and the scepticism that individual action would not make a difference (Burch, 2010). Free-riding issue can also arise in the collective action toward the urban energy transition (Bomberg & McEwen, 2012; Burch, 2010).

3. South Korea's green growth and urban green energy strategies: policy framework Since the mid-2000s, energy problems became the priority agenda in South Korea along with the rise in oil price and the increased concern on climate change. The Lee Myung Bak administration declared “Green Growth Strategy” in 2008 as a new national vision. It aimed at a paradigm shift toward a sustainable development path harmonizing environment, economy and society. The policy objectives included climate change adaptation, energy independence, creation of new engines for economic growth, and improvement of quality of life and enhancement of South Korea's international status (Presidential Committee on Green Growth, 2009a). The Presidential Committee on Green Growth (PCGG) was formed in February 2009 as a high-level coordination committee and announced the first five-year plan for green growth (2009–2013). For institutional back-up, Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth (hereafter Framework Act) was established in January 2010, and “Action Plan for Low-Carbon Green Growth” set main tasks to achieve green economy and low-carbon city. The green growth vision incorporated more energy issues into urban projects, and provided a new focus on urban energy transition compared to the previous concept of green city based on the conservation of urban ecosystem. Before the declaration of “Green Growth Strategy” in 2008, South Korea's green city projects have mainly targeted at ecofriendly cities and did not pay particular attention to energy agenda. For example, among 31 projects selected for Green City Awards2 of the Ministry of Environment from 2004 to 2008, ecosystem-based projects occupy approximately 59.4% (19 projects) while energy-related projects recorded only 9.4% (3 projects). Indeed, the evaluation criteria for Green City Awards—air management, water management, waste management, ecosystem conservation and policy scheme, show that the government has not considered urban energy issue as a major element for green city. The Lee Myung Bak administration, however, presented the new paradigm of green city to cope with climate change and energy transition. “Low-carbon green city,” aimed at minimizing not only environmental pollution but also carbon emission (Korean Academy of Science and Technology, 2010).3

2 The Ministry of Environment launched “Green City Awards” in order to activate environment-friendly local administration through the competition among local governments, and has awarded 45 projects in 33 local governments since 2004. 3 According to the “Guidelines for Urban Planning to Build Low-carbon Green City,” ‘low carbon’ meant decreasing dependence upon fossil fuels, expanding use of clean energies, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through green technologies and carbon sinks, and ‘green city’ meant a city having design elements for green growth which minimize environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by compact urban development, integrated land-use, public transportation system, renewable energies, and water and resource circulation (Guidelines for Urban Planning to Build Low-carbon Green City Article 2, amended in August, 2015).

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

4

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 5 Renewable energy production and electricity self-sufficiency of metropolitan cities.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%) Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%) Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%) Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%) Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%) Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%) Renewable production (toe) Electricity self-sufficiency (%)

Seoul

Busan

Daegu

Incheon

Gwangju

Daejeon

Ulsan

188,210 3.72 183,290 2.6 207,120 1.88 223,768 3.27 255,549 2.95 232,626 6.28 238,239 6.37

98,489 199.59 87,396 201.3 83,026 201.27 92,586 201.77 108,774 190.3 107,135 172.68 116,954 175.23

96,530 1.02 86,237 0.9 111,343 0.86 169,899 1.02 205,730 1.3 158,269 1.77 141,952 1.75

219,118 229.09 300,291 247.6 253,990 247.63 316,733 287.56 276,398 310.0 292,990 335.01 291,540 334.70

38,553 0.18 37,045 0.1 34,881 0.11 39,421 0.48 31,623 0.5 37,050 1.61 58,771 1.58

39,649 3.01 44,920 2.5 40,678 2.51 46,229 2.21 50,894 1.7 47,917 2.61 48,475 2.59

622,805 49.16 626,670 33.6 625,730 33.58 458,542 38.28 570,224 36.1 855,989 49.75 1,126,081 48.71

Source: MOTIE & KEEI (2008–2014).

In order to connect this vision to urban development, the government introduced various projects such as Resource Circulating Ecotown, Climate Change Adaptation Model City (the Ministry of Environment), Low-carbon Green City pilot project in the city of Gangneung (the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), and EcoRich City competition (PCGG). Furthermore, the government planned a series of urban energy projects such as raising energy efficiency of public buildings, expanding funding for green growth of local governments, promoting use of bicycles, and building energy self-sufficient villages. The focus on renewable energy and carbon reduction under the green growth was also presented in its financing plan. According to the first five-year plan for green growth (2009–2013), the South Korean government prioritized the investment in the climate change adaptation and energy independence (Table 1). Among 387 specific tasks designated for green growth, energy- and climate change related issues accounted for more than 50%. EcoRich City Competition which PCGG has awarded since 2009 included “green energy” as a separate category for award. Compared to previous Green City Awards, energy-relevant projects showed increase from 9.4% ('04–'08) to 26.7% ('09–'12). In line with the increased importance of carbon reduction, Green City Awards also added ‘carbon emission and energy’ and ‘green building’ to evaluation criteria in 2012 (Korean Ministry of Environment, 2012. For the promotion of renewable energy, the government dramatically increased budget for “New and Renewable Energy Dissemination Program” and “New and Renewable Energy R&D” (Table 2). New and Renewable Energy Dissemination Program, directly related to urban energy transition, has focused on building infrastructure for renewable energy generation in order to increase energy self-sufficiency of individual cities. It consists of three projects: One-Million Green Home project, general dissemination, and local dissemination. The One-Million Green Home project was a project that the government gave a subsidy (maximum 60% of installation cost) to a house installing photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, fuel cell, or small wind power generation system (Kim, 2012).4 General dissemination project allowed every building to get financial support for the installation of renewable energy equipment depending on the type of energy sources and capacity. According to the local dissemination project, the central government covered 50% of costs of local renewable energy projects in order to improve energy supply and to boost the local economy. Besides these subsidy schemes, the government set the compulsory standard for public buildings. Public buildings had to install renewable energy equipment in order to generate at least 12% of energy consumption of individual

4 The government targets at one million houses equipped with renewable energy system by 2020. As of 2013, 192,134 houses were subsidized (MOTIE & KEMCO, 2014).

buildings and the government planned to increase the target ratio to 30% by 2020. Under the green growth scheme, in sum, energy became a major element in urban planning. Seven metropolitan cities, including the capital city of Seoul, introduced a series of green energy projects along with the policy framework of green growth. Table 3 shows the number of energy-related green growth projects and some examples implemented in the metropolitan cities until 2011. 4. Assessment of urban green energy strategies under the green growth 4.1. Outcomes of green growth Green growth strategies brought a strong boost to renewable energy industries and urban green energy projects. However, the outcome has not been so convincing yet even though it showed an incremental upward trend. In spite of decreasing oil consumption, dependency on fossil fuel even increased from 84.5% in 2007 to 85.7% in 2013 due to the increase of coal and LNG consumption. The share of renewable energy in South Korea's energy mix also did not reach the target. The targets by year were respectively 2.7% (2009), 3.0% (2010), 3.2% (2011), 3.54% (2012) and 3.78% (2013), as Table 4 shows, but the actual outcomes fell short of them. At the local level, the outcomes are not much different. Table 5 shows that the varying degree in the electricity self-sufficiency among those cities still exists even though all metropolitan cities have shown the growth of renewable energy production. Renewable energy production has increased since the introduction of green growth strategy but it was not significant to cover increased energy consumption5 and to impact on the overall energy self-sufficiency. Furthermore, the largest portion of renewable energies in these cities came from waste reprocessing even though solar PV showed a meaningful increase in a few cases (Fig. 2). 4.2. Central and local governments in low carbon green city projects The characteristics of South Korea's low carbon green city strategies can be found in a government-led top-down approach, supported by strong political momentum of green growth. Even though local governments controlled and managed the urban services with autonomy, they tended to depend heavily on the financial support of the central government to operate these facilities in the form of inter-governmental transfers and matching funds (Kamal-Chaoui et al., 2011). Instead of local

5 Energy consumption per capita increased from 4.92 toe in 2008 to 5.56 toe in 2012 (Korean Government, 2014).

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Renewable energy generation in metropolitan cities (by source) Source: MOTIE & KEEI (2007-2014b).

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

5

6

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 6 The fiscal self-reliance ratios in seven metropolitan cities. Seoul

Busan

Daegu

Incheon

Gwangju

Daejeon

Ulsan

89.4%

58.5%

56.1%

70.4%

48.9%

61.0%

69.2%

Source: Korean Ministry of Security and Public Administration (2013).

governments' own targets reflecting local conditions, the central governments set the national target to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to increase urban energy self-sufficiency through renewable energy generation, and asked local governments to implement various green city projects based on the government guideline. In this context, the role of local governments has been “to comply with the instructions of the central government to implement local green growth projects with considerable financial support of the central government” (Kamal-Chaoui et al., 2011: 39). Local governments ostensibly committed to the policy of the central government. As mandated by the Framework Act,6 all sixteen metropolitan cities and provinces have prepared green growth action plans, which were closely organized around the ten policy directions enumerated in the National Strategy for Green Growth. On average, they set 3–4 strategies reflecting local contexts and implemented 100–200 projects (Presidential Committee on Green Growth, 2012), which were eligible for favourable budget allocation. Unstable financial status of the local governments has been major factor of high compliance of local governments. Except for Seoul, most of South Korean cities and local governments were not free from the central government because of high fiscal dependence. Even in the case of seven metropolitan cities, six cities show 50–70% of fiscal self-reliance (Table 6). The average fiscal selfreliance ratios in those cities between 2007 and 2013 are as follows: Table 7 shows the budget structure for New and Renewable Energy Dissemination Program, a subsidy programme to expand installation of renewable energy equipment, in seven metropolitan cities. First, the investment of local governments tends to be reduced as the budget for the subsidy of central government decreases, which supports the argument that funding of central government is one of key factors to make local governments get interested in renewable energy projects. Second, except the capital city of Seoul, no metropolitan city government continually invested more money than a subsidy from the central government before 2014 and their investment size was not big. This also implies low voluntary willingness of local governments for renewable energy dissemination. Sometimes, the local governments expanded the investment, but this was not solely for renewable energy proliferation itself. For example, Daegu shows noticeably large investment and subsidy in 2008 and 2010, but they were intended largely for the solar panel installation in main stadium for International Association of Athletics Federations World Championship held in 2011. By contrast, Seoul can be regarded as a case with a strong willingness to transform itself into the low-carbon city given that it continued to invest more money than a subsidy. Indeed, the Seoul Metropolitan Government has been implementing “Reducing One Nuclear Power Plant” programme since 2012 and expanding installation of solar panels. It also promoted distributed generation even after the subsidy from the central government decreased. In addition to its own policy priority, a high fiscal self-

6 The Framework Act shows the relationship between local and central governments as follows: Each local government shall take local conditions and green growth impacts into account when formulating and executing plans and projects to intensify green growth education and advocacy among residents and to encourage green growth among businesses, residents and nongovernmental organizations through the provision of information and financial support (Article 5). Metropolitan cities and provinces have to establish and implement a local action plan for green growth in conformity with the national strategy for green growth (Article 11). Each local government may have a local committee on green growth to deliberate on matters concerning its major policies, plans and the performance (Article 20). Finally, the head of central administrative agency or each Mayor or Province Governor may designate a Green Growth Officer for the efficient promotion of low-carbon, green growth (Article 21).

reliance could be facilitated to secure financing for the renewable energy projects in Seoul. Third, some cities show quite low real expenditure in renewable energy projects. Interesting thing is that the local governments often exhausted the subsidy first to avoid returning of unused amount to the central government and saved their own funding by carrying it forward to the next fiscal year. In this sense, applying for the subsidy from central government was not a bad idea for the local governments having fiscal difficulties even if they did not have a strong willingness or well-designed strategies for urban energy transition projects. Another problem of the top-down approach was the lack of flexibility in urban energy projects. Since the green city can be defined in the diverse perspectives and renewable energy sources that are appropriate to individual cities may vary, the urban green energy strategies require a certain degree of flexibility to be adapted to different regional contexts. Since the Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs revealed “Guidelines for urban planning to build low-carbon green city,” many local governments tried to develop their own policies to save energy consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. However, some of their attempts turned out to be a formality without strong voluntary participation and active implementation (Choi & Shin, 2013: 76). In fact, South Korea's top-down approach toward green growth did not allow plenty of time for the local governments to develop their tailored urban green energy projects. Rather, the tendency that the central government wanted to make a visible outcome on a short term basis pushed local governments to apply for the funding schemes without sufficient time to prepare for well-designed plans. Such a lack of time caused two challenges to local governments. First, public officials of the local governments did not have enough time to design the green city projects suitable for their cities and to build a capacity to implement and manage them (Choi & Shin, 2013). Furthermore, lack of time often made it impossible for local governments to communicate sufficiently with stakeholders about the urban green energy projects. A fast implementation of top-down urban green energy projects did not allow the local governments to have enough time to build consensus among stakeholders before applying for funding. A bottom-up approach including active community participation was often time and resource intensive (Fraser et al., 2006). Indeed, the local government officials reported that low public awareness was an obstacle to develop and implement green growth projects (Kim & Kim, 2009). Consequently, they tended to follow the guidelines from the central government unconditionally or imitated some good examples of other cities, which often made the green growth projects in each city quite similar. 5. Conclusion South Korea's green city concept has evolved from eco-city to lowcarbon green city. Under the policy framework of green growth, the central government has implemented various strategies to promote low-carbon green city, particularly focused on renewable energies, in a top-down manner. A strong political momentum on the green growth strategy enabled a rapid planning and implementation of urban energy transition. The outcome of the first five years showed, however, a varying degree of fulfilment of the policy targets. It might be still too early to evaluate the success or failure of green growth and related urban green energy projects. With the announcement of a second five year plan of green growth (2014–2018), the new South Korean government showed its continued interest in the new growth paradigm based on low-carbon and clean energies. However, the overall validity of green growth measures is also going through a tough test to prove their feasibility in a new policy environment (Lee 2015). For an effective and sustainable urban energy transition, this study emphasizes that a fuller scale local response with active citizen participation will be crucial to pursue the next stage of urban energy transition. First, a limited local fiscal autonomy, particularly high financial

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

7

Table 7 Budget for New And Renewable Energy Dissemination Program in metropolitan cities (Unit: thousand KRW). Seoul 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Subsidy Matching Use (%) Subsidy Matching Use (%) Subsidy Matching Use (%) Subsidy Matching Use (%) Subsidy Matching Use (%) Subsidy Matching Use (%) Subsidy Matching Use (%)

164,000 658,000 86.1 3,332,000 8,260,000 95.0 1,640,000 8,894,600 86.4 772,770 2,073,610 86.8 1,101,800 2,326,960 63.8 2,597,000 3,781,300 86.2 738,000 1,520,600 86.4

Busan n/a 3,630,000 2,252,000 79.0 1,836,000 1,217,000 95.9 1,233,300 934,900 99.2 854,400 696,000 91.5 85,000 67,000 100 405,000 300,000 93.6

Daegu

Incheon

4,722,000 3,675,722 28.4 1,633,000 1,244,343 61.9 5,088,000 2,731,578 77.5 1,860,000 1,588,700 85.4 1,783,300 1,665,800 97.3 752,000 752,000 86.3

1,204,000 1,787,000 48.2 1,855,000 1,407,497 65.5 2,247,000 1,093,054 95.0 1,522,000 1,696,787 98.3 n/a 2,482,000 772,210 96.6 770,000 5,420,764 99.8

n/a

Gwangju n/a 3,732,000 2,265,000 86.3 2,060,000 1,212,500 99.7 676,000 676,000 100 352,400 308,426 94.0 741,000 483,278 97.9 664,000 1,055,752 63.9

Daejeon

Ulsan

627,400 291,000 99.8 1,904,000 1,794,000 14.5 2,121,000 924,500 92.3 1,113,300 947,800 79.0 340,000 186,500 98.7 223,000 223,000 81.9 507,000 253,500 100

567,000 1,047,513 99.2 52,500 2,374,454 97.3 101,220 25,305 100 239,000 141,500 98.2

Source: Financial reports of Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Gwangju, Daejeon and Ulsan (2009–2015).

dependence on the central government in the urban energy projects, may threaten the sustainability of these projects because it limits the capacity of the local governments to adjust to the changing priorities or unexpected budget adjustments at the central government level (Kamal-Chaoui et al., 2011). Furthermore, the top-down projects may be weakened or disappear with a political shift. For example, the enthusiasm for green growth began to wane under the new administration in 2013 as the slogan of national growth moved from “Green Growth” to “Creative Economy.” As shown in Table 3, the budget for New and Renewable Energy Dissemination Program was significantly reduced in 2013 and 2014. Green City Awards and EcoRich City Competition have not been held since 2013. Furthermore, the fall of oil and gas price may slow down the proliferation of renewable energy by weakening its commercial profitability. Even though it is difficult to avert the topdown approach in South Korean policy context, the reinforced bottom-up approach in which local governments play a central role with active citizen participation would be able to provide a continued momentum for urban energy transition.

References Allen, J., Sheate, W. R., & Diaz-Chavez, R. (2012). Community-based renewable energy in the Lake District National Park — Local drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 17(3), 261–280. Beatley, T. (2007). Envisioning solar cities: Urban futures powered by sustainable energy. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(2), 31–46. Beatley, T., & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place: Planning for environment, economy, and community. Washington DC: Island Press. Bomberg, E., & McEwen, N. (2012). Mobilizing community energy. Energy Policy, 51, 435–444. Bulkeley, H. (2010). Cities and the governing of climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 229–253. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2010). Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42–63. Burch, S. (2010). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy, 38, 7575–7585. Byrne, J., Hughes, K., Rickerson, W., & Kurdgelashvili, L. (2007). American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. Energy Policy, 35, 4555–4573. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312. Choi, B. (2013). Urban energy transition and energy autonomy in Daegu (in Korean). Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Society of Korea, 16(4), 647–669. Choi, B., & Shin, H. (2013). Green urbanism as a strategy for carbon control: A reflexive reconsideration (in Korean). Space and Environment, 23(2), 40–84. Dekay, M., & O'Brien, M. (2001). Grey cities, green cities. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 16(2), 19–27.

Droege, P. (2008). Urban energy transition: an introduction. In P. Droege (Ed.), Urban energy transition: From fossil fuels to renewable power (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fook, L. L., & Gang, C. (2010). Towards eco-cities in East Asia. In L. L. Fook, & C. Gang (Eds.), Towards a liveable and sustainable urban environment: Eco-cities in East Asia (pp. 1–18). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127. Hyundai Research Institute (2013). Structural problems of Korean electricity supply and solutions (in Korean). VIP Report for Sustainable Growth, 13(41), 1–12. IEA (2014a). Energy balances of OECD countries 2014 edition. Paris: IEA Publications. IEA (2014b). 2014 Key world energy statistics. Paris: IEA Publications. Jonas, A. E. G., Gibbs, D., & While, A. (2011). The new urban politics as a politics of carbon control. Urban Studies, 48(12), 2537–2554. Kamal-Chaoui, L., Grazi, F., Joo, J., & Plouin, M. (2011). The implementation of the Korean green growth strategy in urban areas. OECD regional development working papers 2011/02. OECD: Publishing. Kim, H. H., & Kim, S. K. (2009). A study on green growth strategy of local government in Korea (in Korean). Korea Research Institute for Local Administration. Kim, T. I. (2012). Activating green building certification and green home project (in Korean). Jeju Development Institute 2012-09. Kline, E. (2000). Planning and creating eco-cities: Indicators as a tool for shaping development and measuring progress. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 5(3), 343–350. Korean Academy of Science and Technology (2010). Guideline development to establishing science and technology policy for low carbon green city. Korean Government (2014). The 2nd five year plan for green growth(in Korean). Korean Ministry of Environment (2012). 2012 Application and evaluation manual for the 5th Green City awards (in Korean). Korean Ministry of Security and Public Administration (2013). Summary of local budget for FY 2013 (I). Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) & Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI). (2007–2014br). Yearbook of regional energy statistics. Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) & Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI). (2014r). Yearbook of energy statistics. Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) & Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO). (2014r). 2014 New & renewable energy white paper (in Korean). LEE, J. -S. (2015). Corée du Sud: la croissance verte comme stratégie in regards sur la Terre 2015: Constuire un monde durable. Paris: Almand Colin. Leem, S. J. (2011). A study on energy transition in solar city Freiburg. Journal of Social Sciences, 27(1), 179–198. Lehmann, S. (2008). Sustainability on the urban scale: green urbanism — New models for urban growth and neighbourhoods. In P. Droege (Ed.), Urban energy transition: From fossil fuels to renewable power (pp. 409–429). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lim, D. I. (2011). Analysis of the change of urban structure in Gangneung-city by urban development (in Korean). Journal ofKorean Regional Development, 10(2), 113–147. Low, N., Gleeson, B., Green, R., & Radović, D. (2005). The green city: sustainable homes, sustainable suburbs. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd, (Chapter 1). Monstadt, J. (2007). Urban governance and the transition of energy systems: Institutional change and shifting energy and climate policies in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(2), 326–343. Musall, F. D., & Kuik, O. (2011). Local acceptance of renewable energy — A case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy, 39, 3252–3260.

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011

8

J.-S. Lee, J. Kim / Cities xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Park, J. C., & Kim, J. Y. (2013). Urban planning measurements in pursuit of a low-carbon green city: Case analyses of basic planning elements and spatial urban structures in Korea and Japan (in Korean). Journal of the Korean Regional Development Association, 22(1), 17–52. Park, J. H. (2013). Citizen participation and a new principle of renewable energy policy — Lessons from the practices of German energy transition policy. Environmental Philosophy, 16, 159–187. Presidential Committee on Green Growth (2009a). Green growth national strategy (in Korean). Presidential Committee on Green Growth. (2009b). Five year (2009–2013) plan for green growth (in Korean). Presidential Committee on Green Growth (2012). Performance of local green growth projects and suggestions for the future (in Korean). Rae, C., & Bradley, F. (2012). Energy autonomy in sustainable communities — A review of key issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 6497–6506. Rees, W. E. (1997). Is ‘sustainable city’ an oxymoron? Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 2(3), 303–310. Rogers, J. C., Simmons, E. A., Convery, I., & Weatherall, A. (2008). Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy, 36, 4217–4226.

Schreurs, M. A. (2008). From the bottom up: Local and subnational climate change politics. Journal of Environment & Development, 17(4), 343–355. The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea (2008-2015). Examination report on budget and accounts. Walker, G. (2008). What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy, 36, 4401–4405. Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: what should it mean? Energy Policy, 36, 497–500. Walker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B., & Fay, H. (2007). Harnessing community energies: Explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics, 7(2), 64–82. Warren, C. R., & Birnie, R. V. (2009). Re-powering Scotland: Wind farms and the ‘energy or environment?’ debate. Scottish Geographical Journal, 125(2), 97–126. Warren, C. R., & McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 204–213. While, A., Jonas, A. E. G., & Gibbs, D. (2010). From sustainable development to carbon control: Eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), 76–93.

Please cite this article as: Lee, J.-S., & Kim, J., South Korea's urban green energy strategies: Policy framework and local responses under the green growth, Cities (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.011