Interest based-participation requiring accountability in greening

  • Park, Mi Sun (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Institutes of Green Bio Science and Technology, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.04.10
  • Accepted : 2018.08.07
  • Published : 2018.12.31


The Republic of Korea (ROK) has had a successful experience in greening its land because of strong state policy and public participation. This paper aims to analyze the interest positions, participation, and accountability of multiple actors in the process of greening movements in the ROK. These movements were divided into two phases: forest rehabilitation (1973-1997) and urban greening (1998-2017). During the first phase, farmers caused deforestation by slash-and-burn farming and illegal logging, and governmental agencies acted as helpers controlled the farmers' deforestation activities. During the second phase, government agencies and enterprises caused deforestation with urban development projects, including construction of housings and roads. Multiple actors including citizens, NGOs, and enterprises helped urban greening through campaigns, donations, and monitoring. As a result, managing interest positions is significant to motivate multiple actors to participate in the greening movement. Participation with clear accountability is meaningful for successful greening. Therefore interest-based participation requiring accountability contributes to greening. This phenomenon indicates interconnection for interest positions, participation and accountability should be considered in designing greening policies.


Supported by : Korea Forest Service in the Republic of Korea


  1. Ackerman J. 2004. Co-governance for accountability: beyond "exit" and "voice". World Dev. 32:447-463.
  2. Agrawal A, Gibson CC. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27:629-649.
  3. Anthony RA. 1992. Interpretive rules, policy statements, guidances, manuals, and the like: should federal agencies use them to bind the public? Duke Law J. 41:1311-1384.
  4. Arnstein SR. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 35:216-224.
  5. Bae JS. 2014. Leveraging public programmes with socio-economic and development objectives to support conservation and restoration of ecosystems: lessons learned from the Republic of Korea's National Reforestation Programme. Daejeon (Republic of Korea): Korea Forest Service.
  6. Bae JS, Joo RW, Kim YS. 2012. Forest transition in South Korea: reality, path and drivers. Land Use Policy. 29:198-207.
  7. Blair H. 2000. Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance in six countries. World Dev. 28:21-39.
  8. Bovens M. 2010. Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Eur Politics. 33: 946-967.
  9. Bruna-Garcia X, Marey-Perez MF. 2014. Public participation: a need of forest planning. Iforest Biogeosci For. 7:216-226.
  10. Cadman T. 2009. Quality, legitimacy and global governance: a comparative analysis of four forest institutions. Doctoral dissertation. Tasmania (Australia): University of Tasmania.
  11. Cantiani MG. 2012. Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. Iforest Biogeosci For. 5:72-82.
  12. Chen WY, Jim CY. 2008. Cost-benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai. Cities. 25:298-309.
  13. Choi SJ, Hwang WS, Kim SH, Park CS. 2011. Analysis of social networks in the management organization of Seoul Forest Park. J Korean Inst Landscape Archit. 39:74-82.
  14. Choi B. 2008. The developments and character of setting up the forestry mutual-aid society in 1945-1960s. J Historical Stud. 90:291-336.
  15. Chung JY, Yeo-Chang Y, Cho D-S. 2012. Evolutionary governance choice for corporate social responsibility: a forestry campaign case in South Korea. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 19:339-348.
  16. De Sousa CA. 2003. Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landscape Urban Plann. 62:181-198.
  17. Doick KJ, Sellers G, Castan-Broto V, Silverthorne T. 2009. Understanding success in the context of brownfield greening projects: the requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment. Urban For Urban Greening. 8:163-178.
  18. Elsasser P. 2002. Rules for participation and negotiation and their possible influence on the content of a National Forest Programme. For Policy Econ. 4:291-300.
  19. Elsasser P. 2007. Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany. For Policy Econ. 9:1018-1030.
  20. Feindt PH, Kleinschmit D. 2011. The BSE crisis in German newspapers: reframing responsibility. Sci Cult. 20:183-208.
  21. Fox JA. 2015. Social accountability: what does the evidence really say? World Dev. 72:346-361.
  22. Gritten D, Mola-Yudego B, Delgado-Matas C, Kortelainen J. 2013. A quantitative review of the representation of forest conflicts across the world: resource periphery and emerging patterns. For Policy Econ. 33:11-20.
  23. Gulsrud NM, Gooding S, van den Bosch CCK. 2013. Green space branding in Denmark in an era of neoliberal governance. Urban For Urban Greening. 12:330-337.
  24. Han SY. 2004. Historical survey of the indirect administrative guidance. Korean Public Admin Rev. 38:147-170.
  25. Harvey HJ. 1987. Changing attitudes to nature conservation: The National Trust. Biol J Linn Soc. 32:149-159.
  26. Hayes T, Persha L. 2010. Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+world. For Policy Econ. 12:545-553.
  27. Kangas A, Saarinen N, Saarikoski H, Leskinen LA, Hujala T, Tikkanen J. 2010. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. For Policy Econ. 12:213-222.
  28. Kim JH, Tae YL, Chang CY, Kim KM. 2010. Study on current status and direction of environmental governance around urban forest in Korea: with a focus on the recognition of local government officials. J Korean For Soc. 99:580-589.
  29. Kim B, Kwon G, Park M, Park H, Bae I, Oh S, Youn Y, Lee S. 2009. Analysis of Korean successful case of reforestation. Daejeon (Republic of Korea): Korea Forest Service. (In Korean.)
  30. Kim J, Park M, Tae Y. 2006. Collaborative and participatory model for urban forest management: a case study of Daejisan in Korea. J Korean For Soc. 95:149-154.
  31. Kim SH, So JK, Han KW, Park CS, Hwang WS, Choi SJ. 2009. Measures to enhance social capital in the field of national territorial management II. Anyang (Republic of Korea): Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
  32. Kleinschmit D, Sjostedt V. 2014. Between science and politics: Swedish newspaper reporting on forests in a changing climate. Environ Sci Policy. 35:117-127.
  33. Koo J, Park M, Youn Y. 2013. Preferences of urban dwellers on urban forest recreational services in South Korea. Urban For Urban Greening. 12:200-210.
  34. Korea Forest Service. 1997. The 50-year history of Korea forest policy. Seoul (Republic of Korea): Korea Forest Service. (In Korean.)
  35. Korea Forest Service. 2010. National statistics of urban forests. Daejeon (Republic of Korea): Korea Forest Service. (In Korean.)
  36. Korea Forest Service. 2014. Statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Vol. 44, Daejeon (Republic of Korea): Korea Forest Service. (In Korean.)
  37. Krott M. 2010. Forest policy analysis. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Springer.
  38. Lee KB, Bae JS. 2007. Factors of success of the clearance policy for slash-and-burn fields in the 1970. J Korean For Soc. 96:325-337. (In Korean, with English summary.)
  39. Lee DK, Lee YK. 2005. Roles of Saemaul Undong in reforestation and NGO activities for sustainable forest management in Korea. J Sustainable For. 20:1-16.
  40. Lee Y, Rianti IP, Park M. 2017. Measuring social capital in Indonesian community forest management. For Sci Technol. 13:133-141.
  41. Lee DK, Shin JH, Park PS, Park YD. 2010. Forest rehabilitation in Korea. In Lee DK, editor. Korean forests: lessons learned from stories of success and failure. Daejeon (Republic of Korea) Korea Forest Research Institute; p. 35-58.
  42. Mather AS. 1992. The forest transition. Area. 24:367-379.
  43. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). 2002. Public Participation in Forestry in Europe and North America, Vienna, Austria; p. 4-14.
  44. Nilsson K, Akerlund U, Konijnendijk CC, Alekseev A, Caspersen OH, Guldager S, Kuznetsov E, Mezenko A, Selikhovkin A. 2007. Implementing urban greening aid projects-the case of St. Petersburg, Russia. Urban For Urban Greening. 6:93-101.
  45. Ostberg J, Kleinschmit D. 2016. Comparative study of local and national media reporting: conflict around the tv oak in Stockholm, Sweden. Forests. 7:233.
  46. Park M, Kleinschmit D. 2016. Framing forest conservation in the global media: an interest-based approach. For Policy Econ. 68:7-15.
  47. Park M, Lee H. 2014. Forest policy and law for sustainability within the Korean Peninsula. Sustainability. 6:5162-5186.
  48. Park H, Lee JY, Song M. 2017. Scientific activities responsible for successful forest greening in Korea. For Sci Technol. 13:1-8.
  49. Park M, Youn Y. 2013. Development of urban forest policymaking toward governance in the Republic of Korea. Urban For Urban Greening. 12:273-281.
  50. Park M, Youn Y. 2017. Reforestation policy integration by the multiple sectors toward forest transition in the Republic of Korea. For Policy Econ. 76:45-55.
  51. Park M. 2009. Media discourse in forest communication: the issue of forest conservation in the Korean and global media. Gottingen (Germany): Cuvillier.
  52. PROFOR (The Program on Forests), FAO. 2011. Framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance, Rome, Italy.
  53. Rahut DB, Ali A, Behera B. 2015. Household participation and effects of community forest management on income and poverty levels: empirical evidence from Bhutan. For Policy Econ. 61:20-29.
  54. Rosol M. 2010. Public participation in post-Fordist urban green space governance: the case of community gardens in Berlin. Int J Urban Reg Res Reg. 34:548-563.
  55. Rubin V. 2008. The roots of the urban greening movement. In: Birch, E., Wachter, S. editors. Growing greener cities: urban sustainability in the twenty-first century. Philadelphia, (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press; p. 187-206.
  56. Sabucedo J, Arce C. 1991. Types of political participation: a multidimensional analysis. Eur J Political Res. 20:93-102.
  57. Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono SK, Day M, Garcia C, et al. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 110:8349-8356.
  58. Secco L, Da Re R, Pettenella DM, Gatto P. 2014. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: a set of indicators. For Policy Econ. 49:57-71.
  59. Strohbach MW, Lerman SB, Warren PS. 2013. Are small greening areas enhancing bird diversity? Insights from communitydriven greening projects in Boston. Landscape Urban Plann. 114:69-79.
  60. Tosun C. 1999. Towards a typology of community participation in the tourism development process. Anatolia. 10:113-134.
  61. United Nations. 1992. Forest Principles.
  62. United Nations. 2010. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision, New York.
  63. United Nations. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: the 2014 Division, New York.
  64. von Prittwitz V. 1990. Das Katastrophenparadox: Elemente einer Theorie der Unweltpolitik. Opladen (Germany): Leske+Budrich.
  65. Westphal LM. 1999. Growing power: social benefits of urban greening projects. Doctoral dissertation. Chicago: University of Illinois.
  66. Westphal LM. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment outcomes. J Arboricul. 29:137-147.
  67. World Resources Institute. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington (DC).
  68. Yoo JH. 1987. Interventions and innovations for administrative reforms in Korea: the Saemaul Undong. J East West Stud. 16:57-77.
  69. Yoo RH. 2001. A study on the urban forests management by the residents participation. Doctorial thesis. Seoul (Republic of Korea): The Konkuk University.
  70. Yoon B, Kim H, Yang C, Heo Y, Kim M, An K. 2016. Significant of local forest policy on 10-years Jeonnam Forest Project. Korean J For Econ. 23:31-44. (In Korean, with English summary.)
  71. Youn YC, Choi J, de Jong W, Liu J, Park M, Camacho LD, Damayanti ED, Huu-dung N, Tachibana S, Bhojvaid PP, et al. 2017. Conditions of forest transition in Asian countries: a qualitative comparative analysis. For Policy Econ. 76:14-24.
  72. Young MK. 1984. Judicial review of administrative guidance: governmentally encouraged consensual dispute resolution in Japan. Columbia Law Rev. 84:923-983.