Is Cheonggyecheon sustainable? A systematic literature review of a stream restoration in Seoul, South Korea

Accepted Manuscript Title: Is Cheonggyecheon Sustainable? A Systematic Literature Review of a Stream Restoration in Seoul, South Korea Authors: Hyungkyoo Kim, Yoonhee Jung PII: DOI: Reference:

S2210-6707(18)30771-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.018 SCS 1343

To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

25 April 2018 10 November 2018 11 November 2018

Please cite this article as: Kim H, Jung Y, Is Cheonggyecheon Sustainable? A Systematic Literature Review of a Stream Restoration in Seoul, South Korea, Sustainable Cities and Society (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.018 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Is Cheonggyecheon Sustainable? A Systematic Literature Review of a Stream Restoration in Seoul, South Korea Hyungkyoo Kim,Yoonhee Jung* Hyungkyoo Kim Department of Urban Design and Planning, Hongik University 94 Wausan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 04066, South Korea Email: [email protected]

SC R

IP T

Yoonhee Jung* Department of Geography and Urban Studies, College of Liberal Arts, Temple University 1801 N Broad St, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA Email: [email protected] * corresponding author

A

N

U

Highlights  Sustainability of Cheonggyecheon is assessed.  86 studies on Cheonggyecheon’s sustainability is are reviewed and synthesized.  Many dimensions of sustainability are yet to be studied.  Many of the research findings so far remain mixed or unclear.

CC

EP

TE D

M

Abstract Since its first announcement in 2002 and completion in 2005, restoration of Cheonggyecheon, an urban stream in downtown Seoul, South Korea, has drawn great interest internationally and locally as a model achievement of sustainable development and has triggered extensive empirical research thereafter. This study questions whether the restoration of Cheonggyecheon is sustainable. Using a systematic literature review that combines thematic synthesis and realist review, this study establishes a framework composed of the three Es of sustainable development (environment, economy, and equity) and their 36 dimensions as suggested by literature. Based on the framework, 86 studies published between 2003 and 2017 are reviewed. Results suggest that environmental sustainability is the most studied, while economic sustainability has received the least academic interest. Its equity aspect remains controversial. Overall, it is difficult to confirm Cheonggyecheon’s sustainability. Many of its sustainability dimensions require further investigation, and research findings remain mixed or unclear.

A

Keywords Cheonggyecheon, restoration, sustainability, systematic literature review, Seoul

1

1. Introduction

The restoration of Cheonggyecheon, an urban stream in downtown Seoul, South Korea, became a world’s focus when first announced in 2002 and completed in 2005. The project has been considered highly innovative in the country’s urban development history as it revived a

IP T

historic stream previously covered with concrete and asphalt (National Archives of Korea, 2007). It was an attempt that combines recovery of the natural environment and preservation

SC R

of culture and history as an urban policy to revitalize the traditional center of Seoul and to brand it for global competition (O’Byrne, Miller, Douse, Venkatesh, & Kapucu, 2014).

U

Historically, this restoration was the third phase for the development of Cheonggyecheon. The first was in the 14th century when a naturally dry stream was widened

N

into an urban infrastructure for drainage used by the residents of Joseon’s capital city. The

M

A

second was in the late 20th century as a response to the country’s industrialization. Between 1958 and 1977, concrete was poured over the stream to construct a 50-meter-wide arterial road

TE D

than ran 6.0 kilometers; and in 1976 an elevated highway that reached 5.9 kilometers was built above the road to serve the rapidly increasing traffic between downtown and outskirts of Seoul. The new Cheonggyecheon was opened to the public on 1 October 2005 after 28 months

EP

of work supported by the strong involvement of the Seoul Metropolitan Government

CC

throughout the whole process. Structures installed in the industrialization period were removed, and direct sunlight shed light on the hibernating stream below the cold concrete slabs and pillars

A

as shown in Figure 1. Today, it flows from west to east in central Seoul, passing through 13 neighborhoods in four districts of the city as Figure 2 illustrates.

2

IP T SC R

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

Figure 1. Cheonggyecheon in July 2003 and October 2005 (Courtesy of Seoul Metropolitan Government).

A

Figure 2. Location of the Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project.

Since then, the project has drawn great interest internationally and locally. Not only it

has become one the most attractive cultural civic spaces in Seoul that attracts millions of visitors each year (Cho, 2002), it also symbolizes a major paradigm shift in Seoul’s city planning from expansive development to improvement of the environment and livability (K. 3

Y. Hwang, 2004; Lah, 2011). But what makes the restoration exceptional is that it has been exemplified, discussed, praised, and case-studied as a model achievement of sustainable development that inspires urban planners and policymakers around the world (Beatley, 2016; Boyko et al., 2012; N. W. Chan, 2012; Lehmann, 2010; Mares, Mata, Fuentes, & Martínez, 2018; Mazzino, 2015; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015; Newman & Matan, 2012; Rowe, Kim, &

IP T

Jung, 2011; Wheeler & Beatley, 2014). However, since it was first announced, experts and citizens have been setting forth concerns in many ways that touch on Cheonggyecheon’s

SC R

sustainability such as citizen participation in the decision-making process, environmental

performance as expected, and impacts on Seoul’s economy and real estate market (Cho, 2010).

U

In the light of these issues, this study questions whether the restoration of

N

Cheonggyecheon is sustainable. It looks out for an answer by carrying out an assessment that

A

critically reviews studies that look into its various dimensions of sustainability. These studies

M

are applied into the sustainable development framework that is built upon related theoretical discussions and identify to what degree and in specific areas of sustainable development

TE D

Cheonggyecheon has achieved or not. Findings of this study may benefit planners and

EP

policymakers devoted to enhancing sustainability in cities.

CC

2. Conceptual Discussion

A

2.1. Concept of sustainable development The concept of sustainable development today cuts across all disciplines and

professionals, developing its complexities. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development, or the Brundtland Commission, proposed a definition of sustainable development, which is one the most widely used, as “that meets the needs of the present without

4

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). The sustainability effort became a foremost global movement that forces economists and environmentalists to find mutually beneficial solutions. It has brought the most powerful needs of the time, including the need for economic development to overcome poverty, environmental protection, social justice, and cultural

IP T

diversity (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999).

A widely accepted recognition of sustainable development in planning practice and

SC R

urban governance is that it should simultaneously meet goals in the areas of environment, economy, and equity which are usually referred to as the “three Es” (Beatley, 1995; Beatley &

U

Manning, 1997; Berke, 2002; Berke & Conroy, 2000; Campbell, 1996; Godschalk, 2004;

N

Roseland, 2005; Wheeler, 2004). This combination is favored for its usefulness in addressing

A

the complex nature of social and economic conflicts in environmental disputes (Campbell,

M

1996). Elkington (1998) denotes them as the three pillars of sustainability and emphasizes that responsible development practice requires consideration of profit in the three ways. Schoolman

TE D

et al. (2012) argue that sustainability research should draw from the three pillars to live up to its interdisciplinary ideals.

Despite the universal agreement on the three pillars in sustainable development, there

EP

are arguments that certain aspects have precedence over others. Bithas and Christofakis (2006)

CC

argue that environmental sustainability is of primary importance over social and economic sustainability. The challenge is, however, that economic development gets the greatest

A

attention when sustainability plans are actually put into practice (Tsenkova, 1999). The equity aspect of sustainability is seen as not getting the attention that is afforded to the other two (Agyeman & Evans, 2004; Dale & Newman, 2009).

2.2. Assessing sustainability

5

Assessment of sustainability can be defined as the process of identifying, measuring, and evaluating the potential impacts of alternatives for sustainability (Devuyst, 2000). The comprehensiveness and ambiguity of its conceptualization open several options to the considerable criteria in its assessment. Sustainability is also time-dependent and is subject to be interpreted differently by a person’s point of view (Dempsey, Bramley, Power, & Brown,

IP T

2011; Martens, 2006; Turcu, 2013).

Indicators are known to be valuable for tracking changes over time, making

SC R

comparisons, keeping stakeholders with different objectives focused on common tasks (Rusk, 2009). They successfully reduce the amount of data required to describe a situation fully and

U

facilitate communication with diverse audiences (Keirstead & Leach, 2008). Although there is

N

no single set of indicators of sustainability that build on universal consensus in terms of its

A

scope, timeline, and level (G. Mitchell, 1996; Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders, 2004),

M

there are ranging attempts to use indicators in assessing sustainability in cities. An influential set of indicators is by the United Nations that base on the three Es of sustainable development.

TE D

It includes 96 indicators on economic structure, consumption and production patterns, biodiversity, air and water quality, equity, health, and education (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007). Another set of sustainability indicator by Turcu (2013)

EP

integrates expert and citizen knowledge of sustainability to reflect professional standards and

CC

community values. The ecological footprint by Rees (1992) is an exemplary comprehensive indicator that measures resources in need to sustain human demand. In this way, many

A

researchers carry out sustainability assessments using sets of indicators of neighborhoods, areas, and systems in cities around the world (Huang, Wong, & Chen, 1998; Mansourianfar & Haghshenas, 2018; Mcalpine & Birnie, 2005; Moreno Pires, Fidélis, & Ramos, 2014; Moussiopoulos, Achillas, Vlachokostas, Spyridi, & Nikolaou, 2010).

6

However, there are drawbacks in using indicators. Critics point out the highly subjective selection process which may reflect issues of great concern for specific stakeholders (Astleithner & Hamedinger, 2003; Astleithner, Hamedinger, Holman, & Rydin, 2004; Gahin, Velena, & Hart, 2003; Meadows, 1996). Others argue that the indicators are chosen based on the ease of measurability and policy relevance rather than their intrinsic sustainability

IP T

(Keirstead & Leach, 2008). Alternatively, Maclaren (1996) proposes a process for developing urban sustainability indicators and preparing sustainability reports by emphasizing the use of

SC R

sustainability concept as a framework rather than just end-put outcomes. Portney (2003) argues

that cities should see sustainability as a process or methodology for policy decision-making

A

N

U

rather than relying on measuring their performance with indicators.

M

3. A Systematic Literature Review

TE D

There are many aspects of sustainability that cannot be quantified so as to provide computations for various indicators. Rather, this study carries out a systematic literature review of the restoration of Cheonggyecheon’s sustainability. It hybridizes thematic synthesis and

EP

realist review, which are two literature review typologies adopted in ranging fields of study,

CC

given the nature of this research matter that is a policy evaluated based on a framework of certain themes. Thematic synthesis establishes analytical themes extracted from literature,

A

cluster them, and synthesize findings based on a framework of the themes (Xiao & Watson, forthcoming). Previous users of this method report that it is appropriate when the research question for the review is specific and relates to policy and practice (Thomas & Harden, 2008). A realist review evaluates policy in practice and is known to perform well in assessing policy outcomes and impacts that is unlikely to be regular (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015), in

7

other words differential or inequitable (Harden et al., 2015; Xiao & Watson, forthcoming). The two typologies are adopted for the following reasons: (1) the restoration of Cheonggyecheon is clearly a policy intervention to promote sustainability in Seoul; (2) a framework of specific themes sustainability is used to address its diverse aspects; and (3) impacts of the restoration is expected to be irregular.

IP T

A framework is established that builds on the three pillars of sustainable development:

environment, economy, and equity. For each pillar, key dimensions are listed as suggested by

SC R

existing literature and discuss the sustainability of Cheonggyecheon for each. Figure 3 presents the framework established for this research which is composed of the three pillars and a total

U

of 36 dimensions. They are not independent from each other and in many cases difficult to

N

make clear differentiations but suggest a range of perspectives that requires addressing when

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

assessing sustainability.

8

Figure 3. Framework and its dimensions under the three pillars of sustainable development adopted for review.

First, the environmental aspect of sustainability include 19 dimensions which are preservation of nature in cities (Beatley, 2011; McHarg, 1962; Spirn, 1984; Steiner, 2012), preservation of ecosystem and biodiversity (Vitousek, Mooney, Lubchenco, & Melillo, 1997),

IP T

reduction of greenhouse gas emission (Satterthwaite, 2008), preservation of farmland, forest,

and open space (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007; Papangelis, Tombrou, Dandou,

SC R

& Kontos, 2012), water quality and recharge (Marlow, Moglia, Cook, & Beale, 2013; Rose &

Peters, 2001), carrying capacity (Rees, 1992), reduction of ecological footprint (Alberti et al.,

U

2003; Rees & Wackernagel, 1996), mixed land use (Jacobs, 1961), walkable city (Southworth,

N

2005), transit-oriented development (Calthorpe, 1993; Cervero, 2002, 2004), smart growth

A

(Daniels, 2001), compact city (Burchell et al., 2002; Williams & Jenks, 2000), density

M

(Bengston, Fletcher, & Nelson, 2004; Ng, 2009), green building (Castleton, Stovin, Beck, & Davison, 2010; Kibert, 2016), mitigation of warming (Krüger, Minella, & Rasia, 2011; Solecki

TE D

et al., 2005), healthy city (Frank, Engelke, & Schmid, 2003; Handy, Boarnet, Ewing, & Killingsworth, 2002), resilient city (Pickett, Cadenasso, & Grove, 2004), waste management (S. Chung & Lo, 2003), and pollution mitigation (Brack, 2002).

EP

Second, the economic aspect of sustainability looks into seven dimensions which are

CC

green jobs (United Nations Environment Programme, 2008), green consumerism (Akenji, 2014), green economy (United Nations Environment Programme, 2011), combating poverty

A

(United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), changing consumption patterns (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), steady state economy (Daly, 1996), and natural capitalism (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 2013). Lastly, there are ten equity dimensions which include environmental justice (Agyeman & Evans, 2004), right to the city and just city (Fainstein, 2010; Harvey, 2003; Lefebvre, 1996),

9

social diversity (Polèse & Stren, 2000), public engagement (Pierson, 2003), public space access (D. Mitchell, 2003), cultural heritage conservation (E. Chan & Lee, 2008), urban agriculture (Smit, Nasr, & Ratta, 1996), food security and access (Cummins, 2014; Godfray et al., 2010), managing gentrification (Checker, 2011; Dale & Newman, 2009), and housing affordability

IP T

(Aurand, 2010; Bunting, Walks, & Filion, 2004).

SC R

4. Review of Literature

U

This section carries out a review of the 86 studies carefully chosen for this research.

N

Widely known sources like Google Scholar and Web of Science, as well as the Research

A

Information Sharing Service, an online-based search engine for studies published in Korean,

M

were used for searching. These studies are published between 2002 and 2016 and include peerreviewed articles published in journals that are indexed in Social Science Citation Index or

TE D

Science Citation Index by Thompson Reuters for those written in English and Korea Citation Index for Korean. The three indices recognize quality publications with high impact in the academia. The studies also include reports produced by major state-run agencies, books

EP

authored by key academics, and theses and dissertations of top-level research-oriented

CC

universities in South Korea. Table 1 presents the corresponding studies reviewed for each

A

sustainability dimension.

Table 1. Studies reviewed for each sustainability dimension. Pillar Dimension Studies Environment Preservation of nature An (2003)*, Bae (2011), Kang (2007)*, Yi (2013) Preservation of Byeon (2013)*, Choe et al. (2014), Kang et al. ecosystem and (2012), Kim (2012)*, Kim (2008)*, Kim & Koo biodiversity (2010)*, Kim et al. (2006)*, Koo (2013), Yang (2008)*

10

Reduction of greenhouse gas emission Preservation of farmland, forest, and open space Water quality and recharge Carrying capacity Reduction of Ecological footprint Walkable city

G. Kim (2007)

None.

CC A

Equity

SC R

U

A

EP

TE D

Economy

Jang & Kang (2015) Jang & Kang (2015) Jang & Kang (2015) None. None. Han (2007)*, Han & Huh (2008), Hoe (2006)*, Kim & Song (2015)*, Lee & Anderson (2013) Kim et al. (2013)* Lee (2010)*, Shim (2010)* None. Hoe (2006)*, Kim et el. (2012)* None. None. Cho (2005b)*, Choi & Oh (2008)*, Križnik (2011), Lee & Anderson (2013), Mariainaldi (2007), O'Byrne et al. (2014), Pan (2015), Schuetze & Chelleri (2015), Seo & Chung (2012), Shin et al. (2015), Sohn (2008)*, Timur (2013), Uršič & Križnik (2012), Yang (2008)* None. None.

M

Healthy city Resilient city Waste management Pollution mitigation Green jobs Green consumerism Green economy

Chung et al. (2012), Hwang & Sohn (2004)*, Jang (2009)*, Kim et al. (2009)*, Oh (2007)* None.

N

Transit-oriented development Mixed land use Smart growth Compact city Density Green building Mitigation of warming

IP T

Jeong (2008)*, Kang (2007)*, Kim et al. (2005), Kim et al. (2006)*, Min (2014)* G. Kim (2007) G. Kim (2007)

Combating poverty Changing consumption patterns Steady state economy Natural capitalism Environmental justice Right to the city and just city Social diversity Public engagement

None. Bae (2011), Lee & Jung (2015), Son et al. (2012)* None. Cho (2010), Lah (2011), Lee et al. (2007)* None. Cho (2003)*, Cho (2010), Cho (2005a)*, Hwang (2013)*, Hwang & Lah (2005)*, Hwang et al. (2005)*, B. Kim (2007)*, Kwon (2006)*, Lah (2007)*, Lah (2011), Lee & Kim (2009)*, Seong (2005)*, Yoon (2004)*

11

Baek (2012)*, Baik (2006)*, Cho (2002), Hwang (2008)*, Hwang et al. (2011)*, Kim & Lee (2012)*, Lee (2006)*, Lee et al. (2014), Min (2014)*, Neruda et al. (2012), Timur (2013) Grenville (2007), Hong (2003)*, Looser (2013), Noh (2009) None. None.

Housing affordability * Studies published in Korean.

An (2012)*, Chang (2012)*, Chang & Hwang (2013)*, Choi (2014)*, Kang & Cervero (2009), Kim & Kim (2015)*, Kim et al. (2004)*, Lee (2007)*, Lee & Anderson (2013), Lim et al. (2013), Ryu & Kwon (2016), Song (2003)* Kim (2006)*

IP T

Cultural heritage conservation Urban agriculture Food security and access Managing gentrification

SC R

Public space access

U

Figure 4 shows the trend in quantity of studies on the restoration of Cheonggyecheon.

N

From 2005, when the restoration was completed, to 2008, there has been a major increase in

A

the number of studies. A few years later in 2012 and 2013, the number of published studied

M

soared when many researchers carried out 5-year empirical evaluations of the project. Equity

TE D

and environment pillars have been receiving relatively constant interest by researchers. The economy pillar has been remaining relatively less popular but seems to have attracted

15

EP

substantial interest in the 2010s.

CC

Equity Economy Environment

A

10

5

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 4. Number of studies of each sustainability pillar reviewed in this study between 2002 and 2016.

12

4.1. Environment With regard to preservation of nature, research presents mixed findings. Bae (2011) reports that the increased natural value derived from transforming the existing concrete-

IP T

encased stream into a natural state stream is greater than the increased recreational value by

the restoration of Cheonggyecheon. Yi (2013) reports that this project performs as a key

SC R

evidence of Seoul’s effort to make a green city so as to promote living near the green nature in

cities. On the other hand, An (2003) and Kang (2007) present countering perspectives by

U

arguing that the new Cheonggyecheon is a piece of artificiality and superficiality rather than

N

genuine preservation of nature in the city.

A

Similarly, there are differing perspectives on preservation of ecosystem and

M

biodiversity. Kim (2012), Kim and Koo (2010), and Koo (2013) suggest that since the restoration the numbers of annual and biennial herbs continuously increased and stabilized

TE D

after several years. Byeon (2013) and Yang (2008) report the increased number of fish species and individuals with observations of some fishes spawning in the stream after the restoration. But other researchers argue that the improvements are not significant or cannot be assessed.

EP

Kang et al. (2012) and Kim (2008) present that the change of the kind and the number of birds

CC

are not highly different after the stream restoration. Choe et al. (2014) find that the species richness and density of macroinvertebrates and fishes vary. Kim et al. (2006) argue that the

A

ecological functionality of the vegetation structure of the restored stream cannot be assessed yet.

Several researchers question the existence of nature in Cheonggyecheon’s water quality and recharge. While Kim et al. (2006) evaluate that the restoration improved Cheonggyecheon’s water quality, Kim et al. (2005) argue that characteristics of the new

13

watershed is more urban than natural. Jeong (2008) points out the inevitability of additional supply of water for the restored Cheonggyecheon to keep its water quality and quantity above certain levels, and Kang (2007) presents that its artificial water management damaged the ecological stability of the stream based on a series of monitoring of its hydrological cycle. Min (2014) suggests improvements to be made to accommodate water as a natural stream.

IP T

G. Kim (2007) looks into reduction of greenhouse gas emission, carrying capacity, and

reduction of ecological footprint at the same time and presents positive observations. He walks

SC R

through changes made in Seoul’s transportation planning and infrastructure along with the restoration of Cheonggyecheon and argues that the project promotes pedestrian-centered urban

U

spaces, environment-friendly policies, and sustainable transportation mode choice by relieving

N

the huge traffic flow in the middle of the city.

A

Enhancement of walkability after the restoration is another dimension that is still

M

unclear. Kim et al. (2009) find that pedestrian accessibility to south-north and east-west axes along the stream has been improved because of the new design implementations in the

TE D

restoration. Jang (2009) supports this view by arguing that car-free streets along Cheonggyecheon resulted in boosting of the local economy, increasing number of visitors, and establishing of a positive image about the city. On the other hand, Cheung et al. (2012) and

EP

Hwang and Sohn (2004) argue that travel speeds of vehicular traffic on the roads adjacent to

CC

Cheonggyecheon slowed down for a short period but recovered their original levels, negatively affecting pedestrians. Oh (2007) proposes for the need to redesign the traffic signal system in

A

the area to reduce congestion and promote walkability. Jang and Kang (2015) positively discuss mixed use and therefore smart growth and

compact city achieved in Cheonggyecheon. They observe a prominent expansion of commercial and mixed-use lands along the corridor and the variation of land use according to local contexts. They also emphasize that this dynamic change in land use along the stream

14

demonstrates for the need to incorporate urban infrastructure, land use, and transportation system into urban policy for a smarter growth of the city. Researchers agree on Cheonggyecheon’s contribution to mitigation of warming in the dense downtown. Han (2007), Han and Huh (2008), and Hoe (2006) argue that the restoration pulled down daily mean temperature, while pushing up daily mean relative humidity in its

IP T

surrounding areas. Kim and Song (2015) and Lee and Anderson (2013) report that the intensity

of urban heat island after the restoration has been weakened so as to reduce cooling load of

SC R

buildings.

One study by Kim et al. (2013) looks into the healthy city dimension. They interviewed 40 visitors of Cheonggyecheon and find that the presence of an urban waterway generated

N

U

positive effects on citizens’ mental health. No studies investigate the physical health impacts

A

but the aforementioned studies on walkability of Cheonggyecheon may suggest limited

M

physical health impacts.

Two studies examine flood resilience. Shim (2010) simulates various types of storm

TE D

events using flow nomographs and verifies that the restored Cheeonggyecheon shows capacity to hold 88 percent of possible events. Lee (2010) carries out a hydrologic evaluation and suggests applicable evacuation forecasting and warning systems, based on two years of

EP

monitoring. Resilience against other natural disasters are not being investigated.

CC

Researchers report positive impacts in terms of pollution mitigation. Hoe (2006) argues that major air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone, have

A

significantly decreased by comparatively analyzing data recorded prior to and after the restoration at a nearby pollution measurement station. Kim et al. (2012) measure anion levels along Cheonggyecheon at the pedestrian level and suggest that the nearer to the restored stream the denser the anion so as to benefit citizens and visitors.

15

4.2. Economy As for the economic sustainability of Cheonggyecheon’s restoration, its green economy dimension is under a lively debate. A significant number of researchers, including Cho (2005a), Choi and Oh (2008), Križnik (2011), Lee and Anderson (2013), Pan (2015), Schuetze and Chelleri (2015), and Uršič and Križnik (2012), agree that this stream restoration operates as an

IP T

important instrument of Seoul’s policy by which the metropolitan government tries to improve economic competitiveness and global appeal of the city. Choi and Oh (2008), O'Byrne et al.

SC R

(2014), and Pan (2015) characterize the project as a key trait of a creative city. Mariarinaldi (2007) and Yang (2008) perceive Cheonggyecheon as a catalyst for urban revitalization for

U

commerce and recreation. Shin et al. (2015) and Timur (2013) take it as an exemplary case that

N

emphasizes harmonization with the community to boost local economy. Seo and Chung (2012) observe it as a typical example of innovative thinking and creative entrepreneurship. However,

A

numerous researchers like Cho (2005b), Križnik (2011), Lee and Anderson (2013), Schuetze

M

and Chelleri (2015), and Uršič and Križnik (2012), some of whom include those who present

TE D

positive impacts on the green economy, suggest critical views that the restored stream has been instrumental in selling “Global Seoul” and has resulted in ongoing gentrification, decline of traditional industrial sectors, and disappearance of local cultures. In this sense, Sohn (2008)

EP

argues for the need to execute further improvements to be made for economic vitalization that

CC

meets expectations of the locals. Another economy dimension of Cheonggyecheon that triggers discussion is natural

A

capitalism. Using a conjoint analysis that estimates willingness-to-pay for given attributes at different levels, Bae (2011) suggests that the increased natural attribute value derived from transforming the concrete-encased stream into a natural state stream is about 50 US dollars per household. Son et al. (2012) reinforce this view by presenting the citizens’ willingness-to-pay which significantly rose after the restoration. However, Lee and Jung (2015) counter-argues

16

that the ultimate economic effects of the stream restoration remains lower than what the planning process anticipated and that the cost-benefit-ratio of the project was 0.75 at its completion.

4.3. Equity

IP T

Whether right to the city and just city are achieved in the restoration is controversial.

Lee et al. (2007) suggest that the project increased the quality of life especially for the low-

SC R

income population residing near the stream. Lah (2011) focuses on the government’s emphasis to foster public collaboration throughout the whole decision making process that resulted in

U

success. However, Cho (2010) points out the absence of the civil society’s power in the

N

planning process of the project and interprets it as an evidence of the exercise of strong state

A

authority.

M

Public engagement may be one of the most contentious dimensions on equity. Numerous researchers, including Hwang (2013), Hwang and Lah (2005), Hwang et al. (2005),

TE D

Kwon (2006), and Seong (2005), present an evaluation that the conflict management between the government and citizen groups was successful and has led to a consensus. Seo and Chung (2012) conclude that network governance played a critical role and operated as an effective

EP

mechanism for managing conflicts. Lah (2007) finds the process of Cheonggyecheon

CC

restoration as an important momentum that empowers the civil society in South Korea through a collaborative approach. Critical voices also exist. Cho (2003, 2005a, 2010) argues that the

A

restoration was carried out without a proper consensus. Yoon (2004) states that citizen groups and merchants in the area were excluded in the whole process, resulting in damaging of ecological and historical values of the old stream. B. Kim (2007) furthers this view by pointing out that most of the critical decision-making processes of the project were driven by a few

17

elites. Lee and Kim (2009) characterize the project as a confrontation sparked between the local government and liberal citizen groups. For public space access, research shows more positive impacts and negative. Cho (2002) discusses Cheonggyecheon as an exemplary civic arena in which people communicate, learn, and support each other. Timur (2013) takes the project as a successful case, emphasizing that

IP T

this urban waterfront regeneration has various social, economic, and environmental benefits. Min (2014) and Neruda et al. (2012) argue that accessibility to the stream increased after the

SC R

restoration. Other researchers like Baik (2006), Kim and Lee (2012), Lee (2006), and Lee et al.

(2014) commonly suggest that the space offers positive emotions and satisfaction. However,

U

Baek (2012) points out that its cultural influence as a public space to the surrounding is limited.

N

Hwang (2008) and Hwang et al. (2011) argue that only parts of Cheonggyecheon with direct

A

access from public transit and nearby commercial areas tend to be favored by visitors.

M

Thoughts on the dimension of conservation of cultural heritage is also mixed. With a social psychology point of view, Grenville (2007) excavates an ontological security deeply

TE D

embedded in the project that is formed by underlying principles of geomancy, of feng shui, amidst the rapidly transforming Seoul, and finds its distinctive influence in the decisionmaking. However, Noh (2009) and Hong (2003) argue that the restoration has considerably

EP

damaged the authenticity of historic places along the stream. Looser (2013) describes the

CC

project as a complicated reorganization of the past and the present but perceives it highly artificial.

A

A large number of researchers share that the restoration of Cheonggyecheon facilitates

gentrification. An (2012), Chang (2012), Chang and Hwang (2013), Kang and Cervero (2008), and Lim et al. (2013) report significant increase in land prices along the stream after its restoration. Choi (2014), Kim and Kim (2015), and Kim et al. (2004) study how the restoration affected existing shop owners in the area and find that they failed to safeguard their interest

18

and many of them were forced to relocate to outskirts of Seoul without proper compensation. Lee (2007) identifies increased office and commercial uses of land in the area. Song (2003) laments that because of the new Cheonggyecheon the intricate ecosystem of traditional manufacturing businesses that resided in the area for decades have been forced to be transformed to accommodate the post-industrial economy. Based on these observations, Lee

gentrification rather than improvement of the local community.

IP T

and Anderson (2013) and Ryu and Kwon (2016) perceive them as clear negative signs of

SC R

One study looks into the housing affordability dimension. Kim (2006), after carrying out a careful observation of housing prices along Cheonggyecheon before and after the

U

restoration, reports that the project had significant impact. He finds that the prices rose the most

N

sharply right after the beginning of the restoration and that the impact reaches up to 700 meters

TE D

5. Discussion and Conclusion

M

A

from the stream on each side.

Among the three pillars, environmental sustainability seems to be the most studied so

EP

far. Researchers have examined 14 dimensions among 19, but leaving the other 5 – preservation

CC

of farmland, forest, and open space; transit-oriented development; density; green building; and waste management – unveiled. Among those identified, mitigation of warming and pollution

A

can be considered sustainable as a number of studies commonly suggest. There are positive findings on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, carrying capacity, reduction of ecological footprint, mixed land use, smart growth, and compact city; but they are supported by only one study, making the findings less convincing. Findings on healthy city and resilient city are also limited. Only mental health and flood resilience, respectively, are examined as noted earlier.

19

Discussions on preservation of nature, preservation of ecosystem and biodiversity, water quality and recharge, and walkability show mixed results as researchers’ arguments differ. We observed among the studies conducted on the environmental aspects of the restoration of Cheonggyecheon that they concentrate around the dimensions of preservation of ecosystem and biodiversity, water quality and recharge, and mitigation of warming. We note

IP T

that such focus may have been guided by growing scholarly interests on environment protection after experiencing air pollution and water degradation as critical societal challenges

SC R

as a result of rapid industrialization of the country (Choi et al., 2017).

At the same time, we witness several research gaps that require further research. One

U

is the lack of long-term perspectives in these environmental investigations. Researchers

N

reported cooling effects thanks to the restoration (Han & Huh, 2008; Kim & Song, 2015; Lee

A

& Anderson, 2013) but fail to broaden the discussion to address more critical challenges of

M

environmental sustainability like greenhouse gas emissions. Another is the ecological authenticity of the restored Cheonggyecheon that is in question. Despite the positive research

TE D

findings on preservation of the ecosystem, the stream is served by extensive pumping of water that rely on a vast of mount of fossil fuels. This system may not be capable of securing biodiversity and maintain riparian buffers, which are some of the most critical elements of

EP

ecological restoration (Osborne & Kovacic, 1993).

CC

Economy is the least studied. Only two of its dimensions, which are green economy and natural capitalism, are being studied. There are numerous studies on green economy, but

A

their findings are divided. Those on natural capitalism present more positive findings than negative, but the conclusions are still unclear. The remaining five, which are green jobs, green consumerism, combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, and steady state economy, are essential dimensions of economic sustainability but fail to attract researchers’ interest.

20

The most contested discussions about the restoration of Cheonggyecheon were found among studies in the green economy dimension. Our review has identified two distinctive groups of related arguments. One is that perceives the project as a successful achievement of urban revitalization. The other focuses on the restoration as Seoul’s policy instrument by which its local government tries to improve the city’s economic competitiveness and global appeal.

IP T

This contrast between the two somewhat reiterates prolonged debates on urban revitalization

between advocates who suggest that it promotes economic development of depressed urban

SC R

areas (Ho et al., 2012; Krieger & Higgins, 2002) and critics who argue that it reproduces power

imbalance by the growth politics (Kruger & Gibbs, 2007; McKendry, 2008). In addition, future

U

studies may look into the urban dynamics and socio-political drivers of South Korea in its local context so as to rigorously evaluate the economic effectiveness of the restoration.

A

N

Finally, the equity aspect of Cheonggyecheon’s sustainability is the most controversial.

M

Six dimensions out of ten are being studied and receive substantial research interest and present mixed results. Findings on right to the city and just city and public space access are more

TE D

positive than negative. Those on public engagement, conservation of cultural heritage and managing gentrification are more negative than positive. Those on housing affordability is also negative but are supported by only one study. Other key equity dimensions like environmental

EP

justice, social diversity, urban agriculture, and food security and access are not being studied.

CC

Among the equity studies reviewed, public engagement, public space access, and managing gentrification were dimensions that received the most interest. This suggests that as

A

one of the densest cities in the world that went through state-led development in the past decades, Seoul is still need of securing public spaces that are accessible through more participatory decision-making processes. It also proposes gentrification as an emerging challenge since existing urbanized areas are transforming in a way that was never experienced before.

21

Why is there an imbalance among the three sustainability pillars? It is difficult to point out a direct cause. But looking back South Korea’s long tradition of a developmental state that has placed heavy focus on improvement of its built environment and infrastructure as its urban policy priority (Y. Bae & Sellers, 2007; Cho, 2010; H. Han, 2015), it is plausible to recognize its clear influence in this restoration project. There is also a clear evidence of a narrow approach

IP T

on sustainable development that failed to address beyond environmental aspects, neglecting

especially equity as a key project goal. It makes us concern about incompetence in building

SC R

social resilience of not only the project itself but also the local community to reach a more comprehensive level of sustainability.

U

This study is the very first attempt to carry out a systematical literature review that

N

combines thematic synthesis and realist review on Cheonggyecheon, a restored stream in

A

downtown Seoul. While a large number of existing studies empirically investigated focusing on highly varied and specified topics, the study has delivered a comprehensive assessment of

M

the project’s sustainability by applying an three Es framework that ddresses ranging

TE D

dimensions of sustainable development. Review findings suggest that it is difficult to positively assess Cheonggyecheon’s sustainability at this point. There still are many dimensions of sustainability yet to be studied, and many of the research findings so far remain mixed or

EP

unclear. We were able to identify critical research gaps that need to be filled in the near future

CC

and to witness lively debates that capture the challenges that the restored Cheonggyecheon may keep encountering.

A

There are several ways this study can be utilized. First, it suggests which sustainability

aspects or dimensions of Cheonggyecheon’s restoration are identified to be positive, negative, or unclear, and how much knowledge exists to support the findings. Second, it proposes what future research may take on. Dimensions that have been unidentified or less studied can draw further research so as to provide a more advanced evaluation of Cheonggyecheon’s

22

sustainability. Third, it provides lessons to local planners and policymakers to make improvements for Cheonggyecheon to be more sustainable. Lastly, it may benefit sustainability projects pursued in other contexts by suggesting sustainability goals that are likely to be

Acknowledgements

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

The authors are grateful for the excellent assistance of Junhee Choi.

IP T

neglected due to different priorities set by socio-political conditions.

23

References

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Agyeman, J., & Evans, B. (2004). “Just Sustainability”: The Emerging Discourse of Environmental Justice in Britain? The Geographical Journal, 170(2), 155–164. Akenji, L. (2014). Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consumerism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022 Alberti, M., Marzluff, J. M., Shulenberger, E., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., & Zumbrunnen, C. (2003). Integrating Humans into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Urban Ecosystems. BioScience, 53(12), 1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1641/00063568(2003)053[1169:IHIEOA]2.0.CO;2 An, B. (2003). The Cheongggyecheon Restoration Project as a Nature-Gardening and Social Experiment. ECO, 4, 191–210. An, C. (2012). The transition of neighboring land use by the restoration of Cheonggyecheon (Master’s Thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. Astleithner, F., & Hamedinger, A. (2003). The Analysis of Sustainability Indicators as Socially Constructed Policy Instruments: benefits and challenges of ‘interactive research.’ Local Environment, 8(6), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983032000152734 Astleithner, F., Hamedinger, A., Holman, N., & Rydin, Y. (2004). Institutions and indicators – The discourse about indicators in the context of sustainability. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOHO.0000017704.49593.00 Aurand, A. (2010). Density, Housing Types and Mixed Land Use: Smart Tools for Affordable Housing? Urban Studies, 47(5), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009353076 Bae, H. (2011). Urban stream restoration in Korea: Design considerations and residents’ willingness to pay. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.02.001 Bae, Y., & Sellers, J. M. (2007). Globalization, the Developmental State and the Politics of Urban Growth in Korea: A Multilevel Analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682427.2007.00737.x Baek, G. (2012). Analysis of the pedestrian enviroment contentment of the Seoul Cheonggyecheon Road (Master’s Thesis). Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. Baik, S.-H. (2006). A Study on the Cultural Behavior in Chonggyecheon Area (No. 2006- R34). Seoul, South Korea: Seoul Development Institute. Beatley, T. (1995). Planning and Sustainability: The Elements of a New (Improved?) Paradigm. Journal of Planning Literature, 9(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229500900405 Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Island Press. Beatley, T. (2016). Restoring and Reintroducing Nature into the City. In Handbook of Biophilic City Planning and Design (pp. 173–219). Washington, DC: Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-621-9_16 Beatley, T., & Manning, K. (1997). The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy, and Community. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.007

24

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Berke, P. R. (2002). Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction for Planning? Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(1), 21– 36. https://doi.org/10.1177/088122017001002 Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?: An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976081 Bithas, K. P., & Christofakis, M. (2006). Environmentally sustainable cities. Critical review and operational conditions. Sustainable Development, 14(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.262 Boyko, C. T., Gaterell, M. R., Barber, A. R. G., Brown, J., Bryson, J. R., Butler, D., … Rogers, C. D. F. (2012). Benchmarking sustainability in cities: The role of indicators and future scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.004 Brack, C. L. (2002). Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental Pollution, 116, Supplement 1, S195–S200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00251-2 Bunting, T., Walks, A. R., & Filion, P. (2004). The uneven geography of housing affordability stress in Canadian metropolitan areas. Housing Studies, 19(3), 361–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000204287 Burchell, R., Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W., Galley, C., Downs, A., Seskin, S., … Moore, T. (2002). Costs of Sprawl -- 2000 (Transit Cooperative Research Program No. 74). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/3006 Byeon, H.-K. (2013). The Fish Fauna Changes and Characteristics Population of Zacco koreanus in Cheonggye Stream after the Rehabilitation, Korea. Korean Journal of Environmental Ecology, 27(6), 695–703. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696 Castleton, H. F., Stovin, V., Beck, S. B. M., & Davison, J. B. (2010). Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy and Buildings, 42(10), 1582– 1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.004 Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7(4), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00024-4 Cervero, R. (2004). Transit-oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation Research Board. Chan, E., & Lee, G. K. L. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9089-3 Chan, N. W. (2012). Managing Urban Rivers and Water Quality in Malaysia for Sustainable Water Resources. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(2), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2012.668643 Chang, Y. (2012). A Study on the Impact of Cheonggyecheon Restoration on Property Values (Master’s Thesis). Hongik University, Seoul, South Korea. Chang, Y., & Hwang, K. Y. (2013). A Study on the Property Value Impact of Cheonggyecheon Restoration. Journal of Korea Planning Association, 48(3), 41–51.

25

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Checker, M. (2011). Wiped Out by the “Greenwave”: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability. City & Society, 23(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-744X.2011.01063.x Cho, M.-R. (2002). Civic spaces in urban Korea: The spatial enrichment of civil society. International Development Planning Review, 24(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.24.4.5 Cho, M.-R. (2003). Contending the Renaturalization of Cheonggyecheon in Seoul. ECO, 4, 130–165. Cho, M.-R. (2005a). Achievement and Limit of Cheonggyecheon Restoration. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, 53(11), 140–155. Cho, M.-R. (2005b). Cheonggyecheon, Castrated of its Naturality. Cultural Science, 44, 274– 293. Cho, M.-R. (2010). The politics of urban nature restoration: The case of Cheonggyecheon restoration in Seoul, Korea - ProQuest. International Development Planning Review, 32(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2010.05 Choe, L. J., Jung, S. W., Kim, D. G., Baek, M. J., Kang, H. J., Lee, C. Y., & Bae, Y. J. (2014). Temporal changes in benthic macroinvertebrates and their interactions with fish predators after restoration in the Cheonggyecheon, a downtown stream in Seoul, Korea. Entomological Research, 44(6), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/17485967.12080 Choi, S. (2014). The Un-publicness of Public Developers: The Case of Cheonggye Creek Restoration and Downtown Retailor Relocation Project of Seoul, Korea (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea. Choi, S.-D., & Oh, H.-S. (2008). The Effect of Visiting Cheonggyecheon Stream on the Urban Tourism Image of Seoul. Seoul Studies, 9(4), 41–52. Choi, I. C., Shin, H. J., Nguyen, T. T., & Tenhunen, J. (2017). Water policy reforms in South Korea: A historical review and ongoing challenges for sustainable water governance and management. Water, 9(9), 717. Chung, J.-H., Hwang, K. Y., & Bae, Y. K. (2012). The loss of road capacity and selfcompliance: Lessons from the Cheonggyecheon stream restoration. Transport Policy, 21, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.009 Chung, S., & Lo, C. W. H. (2003). Evaluating sustainability in waste management: the case of construction and demolition, chemical and clinical wastes in Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 37(2), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00075-7 Cummins, S. (2014). Food Deserts. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118410868.wbehibs450/abstract Dale, A., & Newman, L. L. (2009). Sustainable development for some: green urban development and affordability. Local Environment, 14(7), 669–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903089283 Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Daniels, T. (2001). Smart Growth: A New American Approach to Regional Planning. Planning Practice & Research, 16(3–4), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450120107880 Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417

26

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Devuyst, D. (2000). Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the local level: the introduction of sustainability assessment systems. Sustainable Development, 8(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1719(200005)8:2<67::AIDSD131>3.0.CO;2-X Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21stcentury business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106 Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Frank, L., Engelke, P., & Schmid, T. (2003). Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gahin, R., Velena, V., & Hart, M. (2003). Do Indicators Help Create Sustainable Communities? Local Environment, 8(6), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983032000152752 Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., … Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327(5967), 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land Use Planning Challenges: Coping with Conflicts in Visions of Sustainable Development and Livable Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976334 Grenville, J. (2007). Conservation as Psychology: Ontological Security and the Built Environment. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(6), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250701570614 Han, H. (2015). Authoritarian environmentalism under democracy: Korea’s river restoration project. Environmental Politics, 24(5), 810–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1051324 Han, S.-G. (2007). The Effect of the Restored Cheonggye Stream on Heat Island Intensity and Building Cooling Load in the Surrounding Area (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea. Han, S.-G., & Huh, J.-H. (2008). Estimate of the Heat Island and Building Cooling Load Changes due to the Restored Stream in Seoul, Korea. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 12(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2008.9693636 Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2, Supplement 1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S07493797(02)00475-0 Harden, S. M., McEwan, D., Sylvester, B. D., Kaulius, M., Ruissen, G., Burke, S. M., … Beauchamp, M. R. (2015). Understanding for whom, under what conditions, and how group-based physical activity interventions are successful: a realist review. BMC Public Health, 15, 958. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2270-8 Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (2013). Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution. New York, NY: Routledge. Ho, D. C. W., Yau, Y., Poon, S. W., & Liusman, E. (2011). Achieving sustainable urban renewal in Hong Kong: Strategy for dilapidation assessment of high rises. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 138(2), 153-165.

Hoe, Y. (2006). The Research Regarding the City Air Environment Improvement Effect Follows in the Cheonggye Stream Restroration (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea.

27

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Hong, S. (2003). A Spatial Culture of the Chungye Stream: Destruction, Stagnation and Hope. ECO, 4, 211–230. Huang, S.-L., Wong, J.-H., & Chen, T.-C. (1998). A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 15– 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00054-1 Hwang, I. S. (2013). A Thesis on the Implementation of Cheonggyecheon Restortion Project: Bsed on ACF Model (Doctoral Dissertation). Gacheon University, Seongnam, South Korea. Hwang, J.-Y. (2008). A Study on the Behavioral Characteristics of Visitor to Cheonggyecheon in Seoul (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea. Hwang, J.-Y., Cho, G.-C., & Yang, S.-W. (2011). Analysis on the Behavioral Characteristics of Visitors to Cheonggyecheon in Seoul. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea: Planning & Design, 27(2), 185–192. Hwang, K. Y. (2004). Restoring Cheonggyecheon Stream in the Downtown Seoul. In International Workshop on Asian Approach toward Sustainable Urban Regeneration (Vol. 9). Tokyo, Japan: Seoul Development Institute. Hwang, K. Y., Kim, J.-H., & Park, M.-J. (2005). Value Conflict on Sustainability and Consensus Building : The Case of Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project. Seoul Studies, 6(2), 57–78. Hwang, K. Y., & Lah, T. J. (2005). Three Keys to the Success of Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project : Conflict Management Strategies. Seoul Studies, 6(4), 169–190. Hwang, K. Y., & Sohn, K. (2004). The Impacts of Cheonggye Stream Restoration on Traffic and Travel Behavior. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, 24(2D), 187– 194. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House. Jang, M., & Kang, C. D. (2015). Urban greenway and compact land use development: A multilevel assessment in Seoul, South Korea. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.07.010 Jang, S.-Y. (2009). A Study on Improvement of Pedestrian Environment for Region Revitalization: A Case Study of Cheonggyecheon (Master’s Thesis). Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea. Jeong, N. K. (2008). A Study on the Water Supply Condition of Urban River based on Cheonggyecheon Restoration Case (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea. Kang, C. D., & Cervero, R. (2008). From Elevated Freeway to Linear Park: Land Price Impacts of Seoul, Korea’s CGC Project (No. UCB-ITS-VWP-2008-7). UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport: A Volvo Center of Excellence. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/81r021w2 Kang, C. D., & Cervero, R. (2009). From Elevated Freeway to Urban Greenway: Land Value Impacts of the CGC Project in Seoul, Korea. Urban Studies, 46(13), 2771–2794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009345166 Kang, S. (2007). An Assessment of Urban Stream Ecosystem for Ecological Management: On the Case of Cheonggyecheon (Doctoral Dissertation). Sangmyung University, Seoul. Kang, T.-H., Yoo, S.-H., Kim, I.-K., Cho, H.-J., & Shin, Y.-U. (2012). Change of Avifauna Following Restoration and Management in Cheonggye Stream, Seoul, Korea. Journal of Korean Nature, 5(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.7229/jkn.2012.5.2.107 Keirstead, J., & Leach, M. (2008). Bridging the gaps between theory and practice: a service niche approach to urban sustainability indicators. Sustainable Development, 16(5), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.349

28

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. John Wiley & Sons. Kim, B. (2007). Urban Typological Analysis of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project in Seoul. The Korea Spatial Planning Review, 53, 111–130. Kim, D. (2012). A Study on the Floral Changes of Urban Restoration Stream: On the Case of Cheonggyecheon (Master’s Thesis). Sangmyung University, Seoul, South Korea. Kim, G. (2007). Challenges for environmentally sustainable transport in Seoul. In Sustainable Infrastructure in Asia (pp. 143–154). Seoul, South Korea: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from http://center.sustainability.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/sustainableinfrastruc ture_asia.pdf#page=155 Kim, H. G. (2008). The Birds Habitat Model According to Inhabitation Environment in Urban Restoration Stream: On the Case of Cheonggyecheon (Doctoral Dissertation). Sangmyung University, Seoul, South Korea. Kim, Hyea-Ju, Kim, S.-H., & Kim, S.-Y. (2006). Changes in Water Quality, Flora and Vegetation of Cheonggye Stream Before, During and After its Restoration. Korean Journal of Environmental Ecology, 20(2), 235–258. Kim, Hye-Jin, & Lee, K.-H. (2012). Analysis of Factors Affecting Satisfaction for using the Pedestrian Space of the Rivers in Seoul: Focusing on Seongnaecheon, Yangjaecheon, Cheonggyecheon. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea: Planning & Design, 28(11), 143–150. Kim, Hyeongguk, & Koo, B. H. (2010). Floral Changes during Three Years after Cheonggyecheon Restoration. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology, 13(6), 107–115. Kim, Hyeon-jun, Noh, S., Jang, C., Kim, D., & Hong, I. (2005). Monitoring and analysis of hydrological cycle of the Cheonggyecheon watershed in Seoul, Korea (pp. 17–19). Presented at the International Conference on Simulation and Modeling, Anaheim, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Retrieved from http://www.mssanz.org.au.previewdns.com/simmod05/papers/C4-03.pdf Kim, J.-H., Lee, S.-Y., & Yoon, Y.-H. (2013). The Effects of Urban Stream Landscape on Psychological Relaxation of University Students: Focused on Cheonggyecheon, Seoul, Korea. Seoul Studies, 14(1), 169–182. Kim, J.-H., Oh, D. K., & Yoon, Y.-H. (2012). Anion Concentrations of Urban Regeneration Stream through Multiple Regression Analysis: Targeting Cheonggyecheon in Seoul. Seoul Studies, 13(3), 36–45. Kim, J.-S., Kim, S.-J., & Jung, C.-M. (2004). A Study on the Factor Analysis of the Cheonggyecheon Merchants’ Movement Decision. Journal of Korea Planning Association, 39(1), 169–177. Kim, K. T., & Song, J. (2015). The Effect of the Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project on the Mitigation of Urban Heat Island. Journal of Korea Planning Association, 50(4), 139– 154. Kim, K.-M., & Kim, Y.-S. (2015). A Study on Reorganization of Commercial Areas and Future Challenges by the Urban Regeneration: The Change of Business Activities and the Satisfaction Level of the Merchants and Traders by the Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project. SH Urban Research & Insight, 5(1), 35–41. Kim, T.-H., Park, J.-W., Ko, Y.-S., & Park, J.-J. (2009). A Study on the Changing Connectivity of Pedestrian Network Using Space Syntax: Focusing on Restoration of Cheonggyecheon. International Journal of Highway Engineering, 11(2), 55–66. Kim, Y. (2006). A study on the impacts of apartment price by Cheonggyecheon restoration (Master’s Thesis). Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea.

29

Koo, B. H. (2013). The Vegetation Structure and Floral Changes of 5 Years after Restoration of Cheonggyecheon Stream in Korea. Advanced Materials Research, 726–731, 1548– 1554. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.726-731.1548 Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). Housing and health: Time again for public health action. Journal Information, 92(5)

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Križnik, B. (2011). Selling Global Seoul: Competitive Urban Policy and Symbolic Reconstruction of Cities. Sociological Review, 41(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.5613/rzs.41.3.2 Krueger, R., & Gibbs, D. (Eds.). (2007). The sustainable development paradox: urban political economy in the United States and Europe. Guilford Press. Krüger, E. L., Minella, F. O., & Rasia, F. (2011). Impact of urban geometry on outdoor thermal comfort and air quality from field measurements in Curitiba, Brazil. Building and Environment, 46(3), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.09.006 Kwon, Y. G. (2006). A Study on Characteristics of Conflict and Conflict Management Strategies of Cheng Gye Cheon Restoration Project. Korean Society and Public Administration, 17(2), 159–189. Lah, T. J. (2007). Observing Conflict Management of Urban Development through Restoration of Cheonggyecheon. Urban Information Service, 307, 3–13. Lah, T. J. (2011). The Huge Success of the Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project: What’s Left? In M. Holzer, D. Kong, & D. Bromberg (Eds.), Citizen Participation: Innovative and Alternative Modes for Engaging Citizens - Cases from the United States and South Korea (pp. 97–118). Newark, NJ: American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and the National Center for Public Performance (NCPP) at the School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), Rutgers University-Newark. Retrieved from https://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/files/Books/citizen_participation.pdf #page=102 Lee, G. (2007). A Study on the Variation of Placeness and Characteristics of Street Environment in Cheonggyecheon Restoration (Master’s Thesis). Hongik University, Seoul, South Korea. Lee, J. D. (2010). A Study on Application of Evacuation Forecasting and Warning System according to Open Floodgate Monitoring Analysis in Cheonggye Stream (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea. Lee, J. Y., & Anderson, C. D. (2013). The Restored Cheonggyecheon and the Quality of Life in Seoul. Journal of Urban Technology, 20(4), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2013.855511 Lee, J.-O. (2006). A study on post-occupancy evaluation of landscape architecture on Cheonggyecheon in Seoul metropolitan city: With special reference to landscape facilities (Master’s Thesis). Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea. Lee, M., & Jung, I. (2015). Assessment of an urban stream restoration project by cost-benefit analysis: The case of Cheonggyecheon stream in Seoul, South Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0633-4 Lee, M.-K., & Kim, H.-B. (2009). A Study on Environmental Cognition Patterns through Discourse Analysis Regarding the Cheonggyecheon Restoration. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 36(6), 102–114. Lee, Y.-K., Lee, C.-K., Choi, J., Yoon, S.-M., & Hart, R. J. (2014). Tourism’s role in urban regeneration: examining the impact of environmental cues on emotion, satisfaction, loyalty, and support for Seoul’s revitalized Cheonggyecheon stream district. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(5), 726–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.871018

30

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Lee, Y.-S., Kim, W.-S., & Hwang, K. Y. (2007). Differences in Different Socio-economic Groups Willingness-to-pay for Cheonggyechon Restoration Project and Policy Implications. Seoul Studies, 8(3), 105–115. Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. In Writings on cities (pp. 63–181). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Lehmann, S. (2010). The Principles of Green Urbanism: Transforming the City for Sustainability. Earthscan. Lim, H., Kim, J., Potter, C., & Bae, W. (2013). Urban regeneration and gentrification: Land use impacts of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul’s central business district. Habitat International, 39, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.12.004 Looser, T. (2013). Deconstruction/Construction: The Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project in Seoul edited by Joan Busquets (review). Journal of Korean Studies, 18(2), 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1353/jks.2013.0021 Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban Sustainability Reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975684 Mansourianfar, M. H., & Haghshenas, H. (2018). Micro-scale sustainability assessment of infrastructure projects on urban transportation systems: Case study of Azadi district, Isfahan, Iran. Cities, 72(Part A), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.012 Mares, L. M. L., Mata, F. A. M., Fuentes, B. F. A., & Martínez, J. H. (2018). From Asset to Liability: The Sustainability of Waterscape Transformations in the Santiago River. In Sustainable Development Research and Practice in Mexico and Selected Latin American Countries (pp. 339–355). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-70560-6_22 Mariarinaldi, B. (2007). Landscapes of metropolitan hedonism: The Cheonggyecheon Linear Park in Seoul. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 2(2), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2007.9723389 Marlow, D. R., Moglia, M., Cook, S., & Beale, D. J. (2013). Towards sustainable urban water management: A critical reassessment. Water Research, 47(20), 7150–7161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.07.046 Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(1), 36–41. Mazzino, F. (2015). The Concept of Limits in Landscape Planning and Design. In Nature Policies and Landscape Policies (pp. 243–250). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05410-0_27 Mckendry, C. (2008, March). Competing for Green, Neoliberalism, Environmental Justice, and the Limits of Ecological Modernization. In International Sociological Association (ISA) Annual Convention. Mcalpine, P., & Birnie, A. (2005). Is there a correct way of establishing sustainability indicators? The case of sustainability indicator development on the Island of Guernsey. Local Environment, 10(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830500075537 McHarg, I. L. (1962). Design with Nature. New York, NY: Wiley. Meadows, D. (1996). Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. Hartland Four Corners, VT: The Sustainability Institute. Metz, B., Davidson, O., Bosch, P., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York, NY: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

31

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Min, H.-S. (2014). Evaluating Small Stream Restoration Projects in the Downtown Seoul after Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project. Journal of the Korean Regional Science Association, 30(3), 71–88. Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. Guilford Press. Mitchell, G. (1996). Problems and Fundamentals of Sustainable Development Indicators. Sustainable Development, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10991719(199603)4:1<1::AID-SD24>3.0.CO;2-N Moreno Pires, S., Fidélis, T., & Ramos, T. B. (2014). Measuring and comparing local sustainable development through common indicators: Constraints and achievements in practice. Cities, 39(Supplement C), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.02.003 Moussiopoulos, N., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Spyridi, D., & Nikolaou, K. (2010). Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities, 27(5), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.06.001 National Archives of Korea. (2007). Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from http://www.archives.go.kr/next/search/listSubjectDescription.do?id=005616 Neruda, M., Tichonova, I., & Kramer, D. (2012). Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Rivers Revitalization. Journal of Earth Science and Engineering, 2(3), 145–154. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2015). The End of Automobile Dependence: A Troubling Prognosis? In The End of Automobile Dependence: How Cities are Moving Beyond Car-Based Planning (pp. 201–226). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-613-4_7 Newman, P., & Matan, A. (2012). Green Urbanism in Asia: The Emerging Green Tigers. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Ng, E. (2009). Designing High-Density Cities: For Social and Environmental Sustainability. Routledge. Noh, J. S. (2009). Heritage Authenticity and Monumentalization for Political Powe: A case study of the Cheonggyecheon restoration project in Seoul, Korea (Doctoral Dissertation). Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.thapra.lib.su.ac.th/objects/thesis/fulltext/thapra/Jang%20Suh_Noh/Fulltex t.pdf O’Byrne, L., Miller, M., Douse, C., Venkatesh, R., & Kapucu, N. (2014). Social innovation in the public sector: The case of Seoul metropolitan government. Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 4(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14706/JECOSS11414 Oh, I.-S. (2007). A Study of Improvement in Traffic Signal Operation at Cheonggyecheon Signalizes Intersections Using Clustered Intersection Technique (Master’s Thesis). University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea. Osborne, L. L., & Kovacic, D. A. (1993). Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water‐quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater biology, 29(2), 243-258. Pan, L. (2015). Marginality as centrality: South Korea’s alternative creative cities. Creative Industries Journal, 8(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2015.1048067 Papangelis, G., Tombrou, M., Dandou, A., & Kontos, T. (2012). An urban “green planning” approach utilizing the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) modeling system. A case study of Athens, Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(1–2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.014

32

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035 Pierson, J. (2003). Tackling Social Exclusion. Washington, DC: Routledge. Polèse, M., & Stren, R. E. (2000). The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001 Portney, K. E. (2003). Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212 Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00022-4 Rose, S., & Peters, N. E. (2001). Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): a comparative hydrological approach. Hydrological Processes, 15(8), 1441–1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.218 Roseland, M. (2005). Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Governments (Revised). Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Rowe, P., Kim, S., & Jung, S. (2011). A city and its stream: the Cheonggyecheon restoration project. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute. Rusk, D. (2009). Measuring success: Using metrics in support of regional equity. In M. P. Pavel (Ed.), Breakthrough Communities: Sustainability and Justice in the Next American Metropolis (pp. 232–327). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Ryu, C., & Kwon, Y. (2016). How Do Mega Projects Alter the City to Be More Sustainable? Spatial Changes Following the Seoul Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project in South Korea. Sustainability, 8(11), 1178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111178 Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Cities’ contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247808096127 Schoolman, E. D., Guest, J. S., Bush, K. F., & Bell, A. R. (2012). How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z Schuetze, T., & Chelleri, L. (2015). Urban Sustainability Versus Green-Washing: Fallacy and Reality of Urban Regeneration in Downtown Seoul. Sustainability, 8(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010033 Seo, J., & Chung, S. (2012). Impact of Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector: Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project in the Seoul Metropolitan City. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 34(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2012.10779388 Seong, J.-E. (2005). The Study of Conflict Management Strategy in Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project. Korean Society and Public Administration, 15(4), 155–177.

33

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

Shim, J.-B. (2010). Development of Flow Nomograph for the Flood Forecasting and Warning in Cheonggye Stream (Master’s Thesis). Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea. Shin, J., Park, H., Seo, J., Lee, J., & Park, H. (2015). Analysis of local and periodical transition in Cheong-Gye-Cheon to harmonize locality for urban green growth. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(7), 2005–2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-0151553-z Smit, J., Nasr, J., & Ratta, A. (1996). Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. New York, NY: United Nations Publications. Sohn, S.-J. (2008). A Study on the Revitalization of Culture-Tourist Place Through the Actual Condition and the Using of Cheonggyecheon Urban-Waterfront. Journal of Culture and Tourism Research, 10(1), 59–70. Solecki, W. D., Rosenzweig, C., Parshall, L., Pope, G., Clark, M., Cox, J., & Wiencke, M. (2005). Mitigation of the heat island effect in urban New Jersey. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2004.12.002 Son, M., Cho, W., & Kim, H. S. B. (2012). Elicitation of WTP Before and After Waterfront Restoration: Case Study of Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project. Journal of the Korean Regional Science Association, 28(2), 23–37. Song, D. (2003). Spatial Morphology and Its Socio-economic Implication in Seoul’s Cheonggyecheon Area. ECO, 4, 166–190. Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4), 246–257. Spirn, A. W. (1984). The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. New York, NY: Basic Books. Steiner, F. R. (2012). The Living Landscape, Second Edition: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning. Island Press. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 Timur, U. P. (2013). Urban waterfront regenerations. In Advances in landscape architecture (pp. 169–206). Retrieved from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/45422/InTechUrban_waterfront_regenerations.pdf Tsenkova, S. (1999). Sustainable Urban Development in Europe: Myth or Reality? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 361–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00200 Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. (1992). Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2007). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (Third edition). New York, NY: United Nations Publications. United Nations Environment Programme. (2008). Green Jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world. Nairobi, Nigeria: United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wpcontent/uploads/2013/08/unep_2008.pdf

34

A

CC

EP

TE D

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

United Nations Environment Programme. (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication - A synthesis for policy makers. Nairobi, Nigeria: United Nations Environment Programme. Uršič, M., & Križnik, B. (2012). Comparing urban renewal in Barcelona and Seoul: Urban management in conditions of competition among global cities. Asia Europe Journal, 10(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-012-0319-1 Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494 Wheeler, S. M. (2004). Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities. New York, NY: Routledge. Wheeler, S. M., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable Urban Development Reader (3 edition). London ; New York: Routledge. Williams, K., & Jenks, M. (2000). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. Taylor & Francis. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (forthcoming). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X17723971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971 Yang, J. S. (2008). A Study on Wildlife Habitats in Cheonggyecheon Downstream: Focus on the Habitat of Vegetation and Fishes (Master’s Thesis). Sangmyung University, Seoul, South Korea. Yang, Y.-J. (2008). A Study on the Role of the Restoration of Cheonggyecheon as a Catalyst for Urban Regeneration. Journal of The Urban Design Insitute of Korea, 9(4), 307– 328. Yi, H. (2013). Trend of Parks and Open Spaces: Comparison of New York City and Seoul. Columbia University. Retrieved from http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:174926 Yoon, S. B. (2004). Marginalization, Restoration of Cheonggyecheon, and the Sustainable City of Seoul. Social Science Research, 12, 240–276.

35