Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Collaborative and Participatory Model for Urban Forest Management: Case study of Daejisan in Korea

  • Kim, Jae Hyun (Department of Environmental Science, Konkuk University) ;
  • Park, Mi Sun (Institute of Forest Policy and Nature Conservation, University of Goettingen) ;
  • Tae, Yoo Lee (Department of Forest Resources, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2005.06.07
  • Accepted : 2005.11.23
  • Published : 2006.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Citizen's involvement in forest decision-making is recently acknowledged as a potential solution to forest management conflicts. Through participation, affected citizens become a part of the decision-making process. This paper focuses on the use of collaborative and participatory model(CPM) for urban forest management. The model, which is exemplified by the Daejisan case in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, utilizes the collaborative decision-making structure and the gradual level of resident participation in urban forest management. As a result, the committee in the model contributed to building partnerships among different interest groups and then to constructing environmentally compatible urban park. Furthermore, an improvement in the levels of resident participation was manifested in the process. These characteristics of CPM can encourage participation and cooperation among stakeholders and ultimately contribute to realizing sustainable urban forest management.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Konkuk University

References

  1. Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4): 216-224 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  2. Buchy, M. and Hoverman, S. 2000. Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. Forest Policy and Economics 1: 15-25 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(00)00006-X
  3. Cabarle, B. and Heiner, H. 1994. The role of nongovernmental organizations in forestry. Journal of Forestry 92 (June): 8-12
  4. Dembner, S.A. and Anderson, J. 1996. Towards forestry information dissemination and communication strategies: new partners, priorities and technologies. Unasylva 184 (Forestry extension). FAG. Available from http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/unasylva/en (2005. 5. 31)
  5. Dietz, T. 2003. What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Human Ecology Review 10(1): 33-39
  6. Fischer, B.C., Pennington, S.G. and Tormoehlen, B. 1993. Public Involvement in Indiana Forestry. Journal of Forestry 91(July): 28-31
  7. Gericke, K.L., Sullivan, J. and Wellman, J.D. 1992. Public Participation in National Forest Planning. Perspectives, procedures, and costs. Journal of Forestry 90 (February): 35-38
  8. Korea Forest Service. 2000. Annual report of forest statistics. 522pp
  9. Kim, J.H., Lee, K.O., Park, M.S. and Kim, H.C. 2003. The Monitoring and resident participation program for Daejisan Urban park construction. Annual report. Korea Land Corporation. Seoul. 68pp
  10. Kim, N.H. 2002. A Critical Analysis on Environmental Movement in Korea: On Dong River Revival Movement. Master thesis. Dong-A University. Busan. 85pp
  11. Leskinen, L.A. 2004. Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 6(6): 605-618 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00009-1
  12. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P.M. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht/Boston/London. 381 pp
  13. Shindler, B. and Neburka, J. 1997. Public Participation in Forest Planning: 8 Attributes of Success. Journal of Forestry 95 (January): 17-19
  14. Seok, H.D., Chang, C.S., Jang, W.H. and Ryu, K.S. 2001. A study on the Urban Forest Management Policy. Research Report R434. Korea Rural Economic Institute. 97pp
  15. Simpson, B. and Cala, C. 2001. Measuring Results in Community Development: An Exploration of Participation and Network Capacity Domains. Available from http://www.bsimpson.calreports.htm l(2005. 12. 6)
  16. Schonfeld, W.R. 1975. The meaning of democratic participation. World politics 28(1): 134-158 https://doi.org/10.2307/2010033
  17. United Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Forest Principles. A/CONF. 151/26 Vol. 3. Available from http://www.un.org/documents/galconf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm (2005. 4. 29)
  18. Wandersman, A. 1984. Citizen participation. pp.337379. In: Heller, K. (Ed.) Psychology and Community Change: Challenges of the Future. The Dorsey Press
  19. Webler, T., Tuler S. and Krueger, R. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27(3): 435-450 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010160
  20. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi. 155pp
  21. Yoo, R.H. 2001. A Study on the Urban Forests Management by the Residents Participation. Doctoral thesis. Konkuk University. Seoul. 164pp