Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Integrating Urban Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment for Enhancing Citizen Participation : Focusing on Official Development Assistance Project in Kenya

도시계획과 환경영향평가 제도의 통합적 접근을 통한 시민 참여 확대 방안: 케냐 ODA 사업 사례를 바탕으로

  • Yeom, Jaeweon (Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Ha, Dongoh (Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jung, Juchul (Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2020.08.27
  • Accepted : 2020.09.28
  • Published : 2020.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The importance of citizen participation, especially in urban planning, is increasing. Citizen participation is the sharing of control or influence on decisions and choices that affect stakeholders, and providing citizens with the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The paradigm of urban planning has also shifted from the rational planning model, which relied solely on the rationality of planners, to expand citizen participation. In fact, citizen participation in the process of establishing a vision for comprehensive plan is expanding, especially in metropolitan governments such as Seoul, Busan, and Daegu. However, there are criticisms that citizen cannot practically participate in urban planning due to limited participation methods and lack of participation in the pre-planning process. Accordingly, the necessity of institutionalization of citizen participation in the urban planning has been raised. According to literature reviews, foreign countries have integrated environmental impact assessment (EIA) into the urban planning to institutionalize citizen participation and pursue sustainability of the plan. In particular, the EIA actively includes citizen participation from the scoping stage to identify the issues. However, it was pointed out that there is a limitation to guaranteeing sustainability of the plan since EIA is carried out only at the urban project level. In other words, in order to expand citizen participation and ensure sustainability through the integrated approach, analysis of EIA in urban planning level is needed. Therefore, this study carried out a case study of EIA in the official development assistance of the Kenya multi-purpose dam construction to analyze the impact assessment in a wider scope than the urban project-level.

도시계획 분야에서 시민 참여에 대한 중요성이 대두되고 있다. 시민 참여는 이해관계자들에게 다양한 영향을 미치는 사회·정치적 담론에 시민들을 참여시키고 의사결정 과정에서의 영향력을 행사할 기회를 제공하는 것이다. 과거 도시계획 분야에서는 도시계획가들의 합리성에 의존하였던 합리적 계획모형을 고수하였으나 최근에는 시민 참여 확대를 통한 도시계획으로 전환기를 맞고 있다. 실제로 도시계획에 대한 비전 수립단계에서의 시민 참여는 일상화되어 서울, 부산, 대구 등 광역자치단체에서 실시하고 있다. 그러나 여전히 도시계획과정 전반에서 시민 참여가 제한되고 있다는 비판들이 있으며 특히 계획 수립 이전 단계에서의 시민 참여가 부족하다는 문제점이 제기되고 있다. 이에 따라 도시계획 과정 전반에 걸친 시민 참여를 보장하는 제도의 필요성이 지속해서 제기되고 있다. 이러한 문제를 극복하기 위해 해외에서는 도시계획과정에 환경영향평가를 통합하여 시민 참여를 제도화함으로써 도시계획 과정 전반에 대한 시민 참여 기회를 확대하여 계획의 지속가능성을 증진시키고 있다. 특히 환경영향평가는 사업의 대상지 지정 단계에서 부터 시민 참여를 적극적으로 유도하여 문제점들을 미리 파악하고 이에 대비하는 방안을 제시하고 있다. 다만 국내 환경영향평가는 개별 필지 단위로 수립되는 도시계획사업 단위 위주로 진행되고 있어 포괄적인 계획에서 지속가능성을 확보하는 데에는 한계가 있다. 따라서 환경영향평가를 활용한 통합적 접근법을 통해 시민 참여를 확대하고 지속가능성을 확보하기 위해서는 포괄적인 도시계획 차원의 환경영향평가가 필요하다. 본 연구는 도시계획사업 보다 포괄적인 범위 및 내용으로 실시된 영향평가 사례인 케냐 코춀리아 다목적 댐 건설 공적개발원조 사례를 연구하여 도시계획 과정에 확대된 영향평가제도 도입방안을 도출하고자 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Beauregard RA. 1989. Between modernity and postmodernity: the ambiguous position of US planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7(4), 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1068/d070381
  2. Birdsall N, Broekmans J, Chowdhury M, Garau P, Gupta GR, Ibrahim AJ, Lenton CR. 2005. Investing in development: a practical plan to achieve the millennium development goals: Overview. A. Binagwaho (Ed.). Millennium Project.
  3. Bond R, Curran J, Kirkpatrick C, Lee N, Francis P. 2001. Integrated impact assessment for sustainable development: a case study approach. World Development, 29(6), 1011-1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00023-7
  4. Burby RJ. 2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292
  5. Chang IH. 2013. A Study on the Impact Assessment System for the Realization of Sustainability. Study on the American Constitution, 24(2), 327-360. [Korean Literature]
  6. Chang W. 1992. Approach to Planning Theory (I) : Dissolution of the rational planning model. Journal of Environmental Studies, 30, 70-86. [Korean Literature]
  7. Cho GJ. 2007. Study of Public Participation on Environmental Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development. Korea Environment Institute Report, 2007(1), 1-95. [Korean Literature]
  8. Cho GJ, Kim JY, Lee SB, Ahn SH. 2010. Research on SEA Methodology for Urban Master Plans. Korea Environment Institute Report, 2010, 1-225. [Korean Literature]
  9. Choi JK, Park JH, Lee BK. 2019. The Future of Korean Environmental Impact Assessement. Envrionment Forum, 234, 1-22. [Korean Literature]
  10. Cracknell BE. 2000. Evaluating Development Aid: Issues, Problems and Solution. Sage, London.
  11. Etzioni A. 2007. Civic service worldwide: Impacts and inquiry. Me Sharpe.
  12. Fiksel JR, Eason T, Frederickson H. 2012. A framework for sustainability indicators at EPA. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency.
  13. Glass JJ. 1979. Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976956
  14. Hall P. 1988. Cities of Tomorrow. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  15. Hilde T, Paterson R. 2014. Integrating ecosystem services analysis into scenario planning practice: Accounting for street tree benefits with i-Tree valuation in Central Texas. Journal of environmental management, 146, 524-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.039
  16. Hong SP. 2017. Feasibility Study of Environmental Impact Assessment as Instrument for Alternative Dispute Resolutions - Case Study: Environmental Conflicts of Mungjangdae Hot Spring Resort Development -. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment, 26(6), 495-507. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2017.26.6.495
  17. Hudson BM, Galloway TD, Kaufman JL. 1979. Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976980
  18. Jeon CM, Lee HC. 2016. The Trends and Characteristics of Engaged Urban Planning in Korea : Focused on 2030 Master Plans for Cheongju, Suwon, and Seoul. Seoul Studies, 17(4), 1-16. [Korean Literature]
  19. Jones C, Baker M, Carter J, Jay S, Short M, Wood C. 2005. Strategic environmental assessment and land use planning. An international evaluation. London: Earthscan; pp. 1-13.
  20. Kanu EJ, Tyonum ET, Uchegbu SN. 2018. Public participation in environmental impact Assessment (EIA): a critical analysis. Architecture and Engineering, 3(1).
  21. Kim HK, 2018. A Study on Factors affected to the Sustainability of Korea's Development Assistance Projects: Case Study on Projects Implemented in Nepal. Journal of International Area Studies, 27, 59-85. [Korean Literature]
  22. Kim JH, Lee CH, Shin CH. 2004. A Study on Environmental Conflict Resolution Policy. Korea Environment Institute Report, 2004(2), 1-96. [Korean Literature]
  23. Kwon YW. 2004. Citizens' Participation in Urban Reform with Respect to Urban Reform Center of Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice in Korea. The Korean Urban Geographical Society, 7(1), 13-27. [Korean Literature]
  24. Lawrence DP. 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environmental impact assessment review, 20(6), 607-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00036-6
  25. Lee JH. 2004. A Study on the Institutionalization Scheme of Social Impact Assessment. The Korean Association For Environmental Sociology, 127-169. [Korean Literature]
  26. Lee JJ, Kim YS, Kim H, Kim DY. 2015. The Present Status and Government Officials Recognition of the Citizen Participation in Comprehensive Plan - Focused on Municipalities of Gyeonggi-do. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea Urban Design 16(4), 5-16. [Korean Literature]
  27. Lee YJ. 2009. Citizen Participation Technique compliant with the Role of Citizen in Urban Planning. Yonsei University Thesis. [Korean Literature]
  28. Park JJ, Sung HJ, Park CH. 2015. Development and Application of Collective Spatial Decision Support System for Participatory Urban Planning. The Seoul Institute, 16(1), 1-16. [Korean Literature]
  29. Peltonen L, Sairinen R. 2010. Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experiences from Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 328-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.006
  30. Rietbergen-McCracken J, Narayan-Parker D (Eds.). 1998. Participation and social assessment: tools and techniques (Vol. 1). World Bank Publications.
  31. Rydin Y. 1998. Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  32. Sairinen R. 2004. Assessing social impacts of urban land-use plans: From theory to practice. Boreal environment research, 9(6), 509-517.
  33. Seok IS. 2008. Public Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process : focused on a comparative study of EIA between U.S. and Korea. Environmental Law Review, 30(2), 437-472. [Korean Literature]
  34. Shepherd A, Ortolano L. 1996. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable urban development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4-6), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00071-6
  35. Wates N. 2000. How people can shape their cities, towns and villages in any part of the world.
  36. Wilson WH. 1993. The city beautiful movement.