훈련성과보고서 요약서
성 명	양준모	파견연도		2022년
훈련분야	도시계획
훈련과제	도시계획 과정에서 주민참여 방안 연구
훈 련 국	영국
훈련기관	University of Sheffield
보 고 내 용
제 목	Enhancing Residents' Participation in the District Unit Plan Process - Based on the District Unit Plan in Seoul, Korea -		보고서 매수		46쪽
내용요약	한글 요약서 참조

Enhancing Residents' Participation

in the District Unit Plan Process

- Based on the District Unit Plan in Seoul, Korea -

2024년 6월

양준모

<국외훈련 개요>

1. 훈 련 국: 영국

2. 훈련기관명 : 셰필드 대학교

(University of Sheffield)

3. 훈련분야 : 도시계획

4. 훈련기간 : 2022. 7. 31. ~ 2024. 6. 30.

지구단위계획 수립과정에서 주민참여 강화 방안 연구<한글 요약서>

Ⅰ. 개요

1. 연구의 근거

영국이 개발권의 국유화와 계획허가에 기반한 도시계획제도를 채택하고 있는 반면, 독일은 주로 B-플랜을 통해 개발행위를 통제하고 있다. 반면, 미국은 용도지역제를 중심으로 한 도시계획제도를 가지고 있다. 우리나라의 경우 미국과 같이 용도지역제가 도시계획의 가장 중요한 틀이다. 다만, 지구단위계획은 독일의 B-플랜과 마찬가지로 구역제의 허점을 보완하는 역할을 하고 있다. 이런 점에서 우리나라 도시계획체계에서 지구단위계획은 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것으로 보인다.

지구단위계획의 법적 지위는 지구단위계획의 특성과도 연결된다. 지구단위계획은 지구단위계획구역 내의 구체적인 건축활동에 대한 상세지침을 유형적 도시계획의 형태로 제시하고 있다. 용도지역제가 획일적이고 수동적이며 추상적이라면 지구단위계획은 다양하고 능동적이며 구체적인 특성을 지닌 특정 지역을 대상으로 한다. 이는 지구단위계획에서 주민참여가 강조되어야 하는 이유 중 하나이다. 지구단위계획은 특정 지역을 대상으로 하기 때문에 주민참여의 대상을 명확히 할 수 있다. 지구단위계획은 장소에 적합한 다양한 계획을 강조하고 있어 주민참여의 필요성이 크게 부각되고 있다. 이러한 주민들은 해당 지역과 밀접하게 연결되어 있으며 오랜 기간 이를 지켜오고 있다. 또한 능동적이고 구체적인 계획은 주민의 재산권을 침해할 가능성이 높아 주민의 적극적인 개입과 참여가 필수적이다.

2. 연구의 목적

앞서 언급한 바와 같이 우리나라의 지구단위계획은 구역제와 함께 도시계획체계를 대표하는 제도이다. 2000년 도시계획법에 지구단위계획이 도입된 이후 우리나라에서도 주민참여와 관련된 다양한 연구와 노력이 진행되어 왔다. 그러나 지구단위계획에 대한 주민참여는 대체로 형식적으로 남아 있다. 이에 본 연구는 "보다 근본적으로 지구단위계획에 대한 주민참여를 활성화할 수 있는 방안이 있는가?"라는 질문에서 시작된다.

Ⅱ. 이론적 배경

주민참여 관련 이론

① Arnstein model (The Ladder of Citizen Participation)

Arnstein model은 Nonparticipation(Manipulation, Theraphy), Degrees of tokenism(Information, Consultation, Placation), Degree of citizen power(Deegated power, Citizen control) 으로 크게 3단계 세부적으로는 8단계로 구성된다. 각종 형식적인 위원회를 ‘Manipulation’으로 보았으며, 시민을 낮게 보고 치유의 대상으로 보는 것이 ‘Therapy’ 단계이다. 정보를 적극적으로 제공하는 것이 ‘Informing’ 단계이며, 설문조사나, 공청회 등이 ‘Consultation’에 속한다. ‘Placation’은 참여자에게 위원회 자리 등을 제공하는 것을 말한다. ‘Degrees of tokenism’ 단계는 일방에 소통으로 머물 수 있다는 문제점이 있다. ‘Partnership’은 권한이 참여자에게 재분배 되는 것을 말하고, ‘Deligated power’는 주요 권한이 시민에게 부여된 것을 말한다. 또한 최종 단계인 ‘Citizen power’는 시민이 절대적인 권한을 갖는 것을 말한다.

② IAP2 model (Spectrum of Public Participation)

Spectrum of Public Participation은 공공참여 국제협회에서 2007년에 제안된것으로 ‘Inform’, ‘Consult’, ‘Involve’, ‘Collaborate’ 그리고 ‘Empowerment’의 5단계 스펙트럼을 갖는다. 여기서 최종 단계인 ‘Empowerment’는 시민 배심제와 같이 시민들이 최종 결정권한을 갖게 된다.

③ Nabatchi model (Communication Mode)

IAP2의 수정모델로 일방향소통(One-way communication), 양방향소통 (Two-way communication) 그리고 숙의소통 (deliberative communication) 세 가지로 구분된다. 숙의소통은 공통의 가치와 규범을 위해 다양한 주체가 심도있게 협의하고 협업하는 것을 말한다.

‘주민참여사다리’ (source : Arnstein, 1969)	공공참여스펙트럼 & 소통모드 (source : Nelimarkka et al., 2014)

2. 공익 관점에서의 주민참여

1) 공익의 개념과 중요성

공익이란 무엇인가? 이에 대한 합의된 답변이나 설명을 제시하는 것은 어렵다. 그러나 공익에 대해서는 다양한 관점과 이론이 제시되고 있다. 공익을 분류하기 위해 크게 네 가지 범주가 사용될 수 있다.

먼저 벤담의 공리주의적 렌즈를 통해 공익을 해석한다. 즉, "총효용의 극대화"는 공익이 보이는 렌즈이다. 이 관점은 사회에서 모든 사람들의 이익의 총합을 극대화하기 위해 각 사람의 사적 이익의 관점에서 공익을 정의한다.

둘째, 공익은 사회가 추구해야 할 궁극적인 목적 또는 "최선"이라는 관점이다. 공익은 정의, 형평, 자유, 기본적 인권 등의 이상을 실현하는 것으로 정의된다. 자신의 이익을 포함한 사회에서의 사람들의 진정한 가치와는 차이가 있다.

셋째, 공익은 사회 구성원들의 보편적으로 공유된 공동의 이익으로 정의될 수 있다. 식수 공급, 대중 교통망, 양질의 교육 기회 등과 같은 것들이 공익과 공동의 이익에 해당한다. 공익의 원천은 국가 또는 사회이며, 국가는 고유의 정체성, 권리 및 이익을 가지고 있다는 점에서 단순한 개인의 집합체와 다르다.

마지막으로, 이익의 실질적 내용보다 공익의 형성과정을 우선시하는 견해이다. 즉, 집단 이익의 상호작용은 공익으로 귀결된다. 이는 사회에 복수의 이익집단이 존재함을 인정하고 공익은 그들의 민주적 분쟁해결과 타협의 결과임을 인정한다. 공익은 소수의 관료집단에 의해 결정되므로 비민주적이며 규범적 가치이므로 개인차가 존재할 수밖에 없다고 주장한다. 공익의 내용은 실질적인 공익이 무엇인지를 누가 결정하느냐에 달려 있다. 반면 절차적 관점은 공익을 선험적으로 존재하는 것이 아니라 서로 다른 이익이 서로에게 적응하는 민주적 과정으로 보고 있다.

2) 공익 관점에서 주민참여의 필요성

다음과 같은 이유로 지구단위계획에 대한 주민참여는 공익적 측면에서 필수적이다. 첫째, 주민참여는 벤담의 공리주의적 관점의 공익적 측면에서 필요하다. 소수의 사람들이 지구단위계획을 수립할 경우 지역의 다양한 이익과 주민 개개인의 요구를 충분히 이해하고 이를 계획에 반영하기 어렵다. 다만 다양한 주민의 참여는 그들의 요구사항을 표면화하여 계획에 반영할 수 있는 기회가 된다.

둘째, 국민은 "궁극의 대상 또는 최선"의 입장에서 공익적인 문제에 참여해야 한다. 개인의 재산권 보호는 대한민국 헌법의 중요한 가치이며, 주민의 참여는 개인의 재산권 보호를 위한 중요한 절차로 여겨지고 있다. 우리나라 법원의 다양한 판례는 이러한 절차의 미비를 개인의 재산권을 침해하는 것으로 보아 매우 중요한 문제로 다루고 있다.

셋째, '사회구성원들의 보편적으로 공유된 공동이익'의 관점에서 공익적 측면에서 주민참여가 필요하다. 이는 지구단위계획에 다양한 기반시설의 설치계획과 관련이 있다.

마지막으로 절차적 측면에서 주민의 참여는 공익과 관련하여 필수적이다. 다양한 공익이 충돌할 경우, 일부에서는 어떤 공익이 더 중요한지를 자의적으로 판단하는 것은 바람직하지 않다. 다른 견해를 합리화하는 과정을 거쳐 계획이 수립되면 많은 사람들이 이를 준수할 것이다. 특히 현대사회의 복잡성을 고려할 때, 이러한 공익적 측면은 주민참여의 가장 중요한 이유가 될 수 있다. 김세용에 따르면, 이러한 주민참여는 결과적으로 주민역량을 강화하여 지방자치를 완성하는 데 중요한 역할을 할 것이다.

Ⅲ. 지구단위계획

지구단위계획의 의의

독일은 B-플랜을 통해 개발행위를 규제하고 있고, 영국의 도시계획 시스템은 개발권의 국유화와 계획허가에 의존하고 있다. 반대로 미국은 구역제를 중심으로 한 도시계획 시스템을 가지고 있다. 우리나라도 미국과 마찬가지로 구역제가 매우 중요한 역할을 하고 있다. 또한 독일의 B-플랜과 유사한 지구단위계획은 우리나라의 구역제의 단점을 보완한 것이다.

도시계획체계는 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률에 따라 도시계획, 도시기본계획, 도시관리계획(구역계획, 도시시설계획, 지구단위계획을 포함한다)과 집행계획으로 구성된다. 지구단위계획은 도시관리계획의 하나로 도시계획체계에서 도시계획과 도시기본계획의 하위계획이다. 따라서 지구단위계획은 특정 지역의 고유한 상황을 고려하여 상위계획이 제안하는 지역의 방향을 묘사한다. 또한 집행계획이나 건축계획과 같은 하위계획에 대한 지침을 제공한다.

지구단위계획과 같은 도시관리계획은 개인에 대한 법적 제한을 가지고 있다는 점에서 광역계획, 도시기본계획과 차이가 있다. 이는 지구단위계획에 주민참여가 더욱 중요한 이유가 될 수 있다.

2. 지구단위계획의 주요내용(생략)

3. 지구단위계획의 역사

우리나라의 도시계획제도는 토지이용과 개발규모에 대한 사전지침을 정하는 미국의 구역제를 기반으로 시행되었다. 용도를 엄격히 구분하는 구역제는 도시기능의 다양성을 달성하는 데 어려움이 있었으며, 우리나라의 기성도시 쇠퇴와 같은 문제를 해결하기 위한 문제해결 전략의 적용가능성을 제한하였다.

1960년대와 1970년대의 급속한 경제성장과 공급중심의 도시개발로 도시환경은 악화되어 왔다. 이러한 질적 하락은 1980년 건축법에 의한 도시디자인 제도와 1991년 도시계획법에 의한 상세계획제도의 시행을 촉발시켰다. 두 제도는 공통된 목적을 가지고 있었는데, 이는 기존의 구역제만으로는 도시를 효과적으로 통제하기에 불충분하다는 믿음을 해소하기 위한 것이었다. 용도지역제와 함께 추가적인 조치를 도입함으로써 도시환경에 대한 통제력을 강화할 필요성이 있었다. 이러한 제도의 탄생에는 독일의 B-플랜, 미국의 용도지역계획, 일본의 지구계획 등이 영향을 미쳤다.

도시설계제도와 상세계획제도는 기본법의 차이로 인해 차이가 있었다. 도시설계는 주로 건축법에 의해 주도되었다. 도시계획에 관한 조치는 미비한 반면, 건축물 내용의 구체적인 내용을 규율하는 광범위한 규정이 있었다. 이와 반대로 상세계획제도에는 해당 지역의 토지이용 및 도시계획 편의시설 등 도시계획에 관한 조치가 주로 포함되어 있었고, 건축물에 관한 규정은 용도, 규모, 높이 등 주요 사항에만 집중되어 있었다.

이 두 제도는 상당한 유사성을 나타내며 각각의 법적 체계를 가지고 별도로 운영되었다. 이로 인해 도시계획행정의 혼란을 초래하고 시민들의 혼란을 초래했습니다. 그리하여 2000년 도시계획법의 개정을 통해 위 두 제도를 지구단위계획에 통합하여 문제를 해결하게 되었다.

Ⅳ. 지구단위계획에서의 주민참여

1. 법적의무사항

1) 주민의견청취제도

「국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률 시행령」(2024년)에 따라 주민의견 청취 과정에서 작성된 계획안을 "해당 지방자치단체의 공보 또는 2개 이상의 종합일간지"와 "해당 지방자치단체의 홈페이지 등"에 동시에 공고하고, 계획안을 14일 이상 국민이 열람할 수 있도록 하여야 한다. 나아가 도시계획 및 개발사업의 대부분을 위해서도 이러한 '공람' 절차가 필요합니다.

이런 주민 의견 청취 과정은 법적으로 매우 엄격하게 처리되고 있다. 대법원도 "도시계획의 내용을 공표하는 것은 많은 이해관계자의 이해관계를 합리적으로 조정하여 국민의 권리의 부당한 침해를 방지하고 행정의 민주화와 신뢰 확보를 위한 과정에 국민의 의사를 반영하기 위한 것"이라며 이런 공표·공표 절차에 하자가 있는 도시계획 결정은 위법하다고 판시했다. 또한, 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률 제28조 제4항에 따라 주민의견이나 위원회 심의 등을 통해 계획의 중요한 내용이 변경될 때에는 계획을 재공고하여 주민들이 접근할 수 있도록 하여야 한다.

시민의 의견을 구하는 이러한 방법은 형식적인 측면에서 엄격하게 지켜진다. 만약 요구되는 법적 절차를 따르지 않는다면, 그 계획은 무효가 될 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 문제는 단순히 형식적 절차를 준수하는 것을 넘어 주민들의 가시적인 참여가 부족하다는 데 있다.

일차적인 문제는 주민들이 공고를 인지하기 어렵고, 공고를 인지하더라도 관련 정보에 접근하기 어렵다는 것이다. 지자체의 언론이나 지자체의 인터넷 홈페이지 등 2개 이상의 일반일간지와 언론에 동시에 게재하는 방식은 매우 형식적인 방식인 것이 사실이며, 일반 주민들도 이를 인지하기 매우 어렵다. 특히, 1개 이상의 신문에 게재되는 공고는 1981년 도시계획법에 처음 도입되어 특혜 시비로 인해 특정 일간지 2개에 게재되는 공고를 할 수 없고, 주민들이 모든 일간지를 구독하고 언제 나올지 모르는 공고를 매일 볼 수 없는 것이 현실이다. 또한, 세부 계획서를 열람하기 위해서는 주민들이 직접 지자체를 방문하여 계획서를 확인해야 하는데, 이 또한 주민들의 정보 접근성을 제한하고 있다.

2) 결정고시 및 열람

위원회의 심의를 거쳐 계획이 확정되면 그 결정내용을 「국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률」 제30조 및 「국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률 시행령」 제25조에 따라 고시하고 국민이 열람할 수 있도록 하여야 한다. 고시방법은 중앙 또는 지방자치단체의 관보와 인터넷 홈페이지를 통해 하여야 한다.

결정고시 및 열람은 주민을 포함한 많은 사람들이 최종안을 재확인할 수 있는 기회를 제공한다. 그러나 주민의견 청취제와 마찬가지로 주민들이 결정통지 사실 자체를 확인하기 어렵고, 계획내용을 확인하기 위해서는 지자체를 직접 방문해야 하는 문제가 있다.

2. 관련가이드라인

서울시를 기준으로 한 주민참여 관련 지침에는 국토교통부의 지구단위계획 수립지침과 서울시의 지구단위계획 관리·운영 기준 등이 있다. 두 지침의 주민참여 관련 내용은 비법률적 선택의 성격을 갖는다.

국토교통부 지구단위계획 수립지침 제3조에 따르면 필요한 경우 토지소유자 등 이해관계자를 포함한 지역주민을 대상으로 설문조사와 주민설명회를 실시할 수 있다. 이러한 활동의 목적은 주민들의 의견을 충분히 수렴하여 사전에 협조가 필요한 사항을 협의하여 합리적인 계획을 수립하는 것이다.

서울특별시 지구단위계획 관리운영기준 제1-2호에 의하면 지역특성을 보존하기 위하여 주민의 자율적이고 지속적인 관리가 필요한 경우 민·관 협의체 구성을 검토하도록 되어 있다. 또한 서울특별시 지구단위계획 관리운영기준에서는 '주민동의서'와 '지역관리'를 정의하고 지구단위계획 수립 시 필요한 경우 두 가지 개념을 사용할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 위에서 "주민약속"이란 지속적으로 변화하는 지역특성과 환경을 고려하여 주민(지역에서 일하거나 임대하는 사람을 포함하는 개념)이 상호 발전 및 환경개선에 필요한 사항에 관하여 스스로 규정을 정하여 운영하는 것을 말한다. "지역메니지먼트"란 민간이 주도하는 공공공간의 집합체를 관리·운영하여 지역활성화의 기반을 마련하는 모든 활동을 말한다.

앞서 설명한 국토교통부와 서울시의 가이드라인의 공통점은 그 내용이 오히려 선언적이고 추상적이라는 점이다. 실제 지구단위계획 수립과정에서 시간과 비용 문제로 인해 법률에서 정한 최소한의 주민참여 절차만 시행되고 있음을 고려하면 이러한 문제점은 개선될 필요가 있다.

3. 주민제안

우리나라 헌법재판소는 1999년 비례의 원칙에 따라 헌법적으로 국민의 재산권을 제한하기 위해서는 금전배상 규정을 신설하는 등 재산권 침해와 공익 사이의 비례성을 회복할 수 있는 다양한 방안을 마련해야 한다고 지적하면서 도시계획구역 내 행위제한의 헌법불합치 결정을 내렸다. 헌법재판소 결정 이후 2000년 도시계획법이 전면 개정되고 '주민제안'에 관한 규정이 신설되면서 현행 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률이 이 규정을 대신하고 있다.

지구단위계획의 수립이나 변경을 위한 '주민제안'의 경우 전문가의 도움으로 많은 비용이 소요될 수밖에 없지만, 일반적으로 제안자가 모든 비용을 부담한다. 이 때문에 아파트 재건축과 같은 경제적 이익이 확보되어야 '주민제안'이 실현되며, 일반적인 경우에는 주민제안이 적극적으로 활용되지는 않는다.

Ⅴ. 사례연구(성북동지구단위계획 재정비 평가)

1. 주민참여이론에 따른 평가

성북동 지구단위계획의 개편은 참여하지 않는 단계인 테라피와 조작을 넘어 토큰리즘의 정도의 단계를 보여준다. 주민워크숍과 소셜미디어를 활용해 다양한 정보를 알리는 것은 오랜 기간에 걸쳐 여러 과정을 거쳤고, 이 과정을 통해 주민들의 다양한 의견을 수렴하고 공유(협의)했다. 또한 성북동 지구단위계획의 개편 역시 실제 계획의 대부분이 주민들이 제안한 불만에서 시작된다는 점에서 'Citizen Power' 단계가 일부 포함되어 있다. 모든 주민들의 불만이 의문 없이 수용된 것은 아니지만, 최종 도시계획 결정의 상당 부분이 주민들의 아이디어에 의해 영향을 받았다. 계획은 초기 단계부터 진행된 워크숍을 통해 주민들과 협업하여 작성되었다.

또한, IAP2 Model(Public Participation Spectrum of Public Participation)은 주민참여를 정보화(Information), 협의화(Consult), 관여화(Involvation), 협업화(Collaborate), 권한화(Empower)의 단계로 구분하고 있으며, 주민워크숍 과정을 통해 주민의 적극적인 개입이 이루어진다는 점에서 '참여화(Involvation)' 단계를 관찰할 수 있었다.

마지막으로 나바치 모델(Communication Mode)은 주민참여 단계를 단방향 소통, 양방향 소통, 숙의 소통으로 구분하고 있는데 성북동 지구단위계획 개편에서는 주민협의체 중심의 양방향 소통이 이루어졌다고 판단된다.

성북동 지구단위계획의 한계는 주민참여이론에 근거하여 아른슈타인 모델의 'Degree of Citizen Power', IAP2 모델의 'Empower', 나바치 모델의 'Deliverative Communication'의 단계와 관련하여 부족함을 알 수 있었다. 이는 단순히 도시계획의 문제가 아닌 지금 우리나라 도시계획의 정치적, 사회적 맥락과 함께 이해되어야 할 것이다.

적법한 주민참여 절차인 주민공람공고는 2개의 임의 일간지와 성북구청 홈페이지를 통해 진행되었는데, 주민들이 주민공람공고 과정을 인지하는 데 어려움이 많았을 것으로 판단된다. 다행히 공고 전에 유튜브를 통해 주민들과 계획을 공유했다. 하지만 이 또한 많은 주민들이 계획 진행 상황을 인지하는 데 한계가 있어 보인다.

2. '공익' 관점에 따른 평가

성북동 지구단위계획 재정비에 주민들이 참여하는 것은 지역의 다양한 이해관계와 주민 개개인의 요구를 충분히 이해하고 계획에 반영하려고 노력한다는 점에서 벤담의 공리주의적 관점의 공익성과 관련이 있다. 지역 주민 개인의 재산권과 관련된 의견을 수렴하여 대한민국 헌법의 중요한 가치인 개인 재산권 보호와도 관련이 있다.

아울러 사회구성원들이 보편적으로 공유하는 공동의 이익을 다루고 있으며, 다양한 공익이 충돌하는 상황에서 다양한 의견을 통해 이를 조율하는 것은 절차적 측면에서 공익과 관련이 있다. 다만 사회적 약자들이 적극적으로 참여할 수 있는 배려가 부족한 것은 공익적 측면에서는 부족하다고 볼 수 있다. 계획을 수립하는 과정에서 다양한 사회적 약자들에 대한 적극적인 별도의 의견수렴 과정이 없다는 점은 아쉬운 부분으로 지적할 수 있다.

사회적 약자의 도시계획과정 참여는 사회가 추구해야 할 궁극적인 목표라는 점에서 공익과 관련이 있으며, 다양한 사회구성원의 의견을 조율하는 과정을 중시한다는 점에서 절차적 측면의 공익과도 관련이 있다. 따라서 사회적 약자의 도시계획과정 참여는 매우 중요한 부분이라고 생각된다. 그러나 계획에 대한 사회적 약자의 참여와 관련된 정보는 찾아보기 어려웠고, 정부차원에서 사회적 약자의 참여와 관련된 규정은 없는 것으로 확인되었다.

Ⅵ. 정책제언

1. 주민참여 관련 법적 의무 강화

① 공고 및 열람방법의 다양화

지구단위계획에서 주민참여와 관련된 유일한 법적 의무는 주민청취과정이라고 볼 수 있다. 실제로 이 방법은 계획이 거의 확정되면 주민들의 의견을 수렴하는 것이 주를 이루기 때문에 소극적이고 최소한의 주민참여로 이루어질 수 있다.  주민들의 의견을 듣는 과정은 크게 공고와 열람으로 구분할 수 있다. 공고의 경우 주민들이 그 사실을 인지하기가 매우 어렵고 열람의 경우 특정한 장소에서 열람할 수 없는 한계로 인해 주민들이 편리하게 접근하고 열람하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있다. 지역일간지의 공고와 열람에 관한 규정은 1981년 3월 31일 법률 제3410호로 개정·공포된 구 도시계획법에 의해 처음 도입되었으며, 시간이 지날수록 국민들의 의식이 높아지고 있다는 점을 고려할 필요가 있다. 또한 대책으로 SNS, 이메일 등 다양한 방법을 활용하여 주민들이 공표나 열람기간에 쉽게 인지하고 의견을 제출할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 이와 더불어 쉽게 열람할 수 있도록 관련 정보를 전산화하여 정보에 대한 접근성을 향상시켜야 한다.

② 주민의견 청취 전 공청회 의무화

또한, 더 중요한 문제는 주민의견 청취 과정이 계획이 거의 완료된 이후에 진행된다는 점이다. 계획 수립 과정에서 주민의견을 반영하고 실질적인 주민참여가 되기 위해서는 적어도 계획 초기에 공청회 등의 과정을 법적으로 의무화할 필요가 있다. 계획 초기에 공청회 등을 통해 주민들이 지구단위계획 수립 과정에 어떻게 참여할 수 있는지에 대한 정보를 제공하면 보다 적극적인 주민참여를 보장할 수 있을 것이다. 계획과정에서 공청회를 의무화하고 기초조사 과정에서 주민의견 수렴과정을 의무화할 필요가 있다. 또한, 국토교통부의 지구단위계획 수립지침에서 관련 사항을 구체적으로 명시할 필요가 있다.

③ 주민제안 행정지원 의무화

지금까지는 공공기관이 지구단위계획의 수립과 변경을 주도하였으나, 앞으로는 주민이 직접 계획하여 지구단위계획의 수립과 변경을 제안할 수 있도록 제도를 개선할 필요가 있다.

2. 주민참여를 위한 온라인 플랫폼 활용

주민참여를 저해하는 대표적인 요인은 정보접근성, 계획별 주민참여의 편차, 주민참여의 비용과 비효율성 등이다. 무엇보다 주민들이 다양한 정보에 쉽게 접근할 수 있는 것이 주민참여의 시작이지만, 현재의 상황은 주민들이 계획과 관련된 다양한 정보에 접근하기가 매우 어렵다는 것을 말해준다. 또한 지구단위계획마다 지구단위계획을 주도하는 인력과 예산이 다르고, 이에 따라 주민참여의 편차가 크다는 사실이다. 또한 주민참여는 많은 시간과 비용을 필요로 하기 때문에 비효율적이라는 인식이 있을 수 있다. 이러한 문제를 극복하기 위해서는 국가 차원이나 지방자치단체 차원에서 공통 온라인 플랫폼을 활용하는 것이 도움이 될 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 공통 온라인 플랫폼은 주민들의 정보 접근성을 높이고, 다양한 계획에 의한 주민 참여의 편차를 줄이며, 주민 참여와 관련된 시간과 비용을 줄여 주민 참여의 비효율성을 개선하는 중요한 대안이 될 수 있다.

실제로, 예를 들어 영국 셰필드 시의회는 계획허가와 관련된 별도의 인터넷 사이트를 보유하고 있으며, 계획허가와 관련된 각종 문서, 주민의견, 관련 사례 등 계획과 관련된 중요한 사항을 공개하고 있다. 주민들은 계획과정에 참여하여 인터넷 사이트를 통해 의견을 개진하고, 각종 관련 문서를 열람하며 유사한 사례를 살펴볼 수 있다. 영국의 계획허가와 우리나라의 지구단위계획은 분명한 차이가 있지만, 주민참여를 위한 온라인 플랫폼을 구축하고 구축된 온라인 플랫폼을 중심으로 다양한 주민참여를 모색하는 것은 참고할 가치가 있다고 판단된다.

3. 주민참여 필요성에 대한 공감대 형성

앞서 언급한 바와 같이 지구단위계획에서 주민참여는 공익적 측면에서 다양한 의미를 가지고 있다. 주민참여는 지역의 다양한 이익과 주민 개개인의 요구를 충분히 이해함으로써 대한민국 헌법의 중요한 가치인 개인 재산권 보호와 관련이 있다. 또한 지구단위계획은 사회구성원들이 보편적으로 공유하는 공동의 이익을 다루며, 다양한 의견을 수렴하고 공유함으로써 갈등에 직면하여 다양한 공익을 조율하는 절차적 공익과 관련이 있다. 이러한 측면에서 주민참여의 공익적 가치를 인정하고 주민참여의 가치에 대한 공감대를 형성할 필요가 있다. 그 이유는 주민참여를 통한 지구단위계획을 구성하기 위해서는 이전 정부 주도의 접근과는 달리 노동, 현금, 시간 등 실질적인 자원배분이 필요하기 때문이다. 이러한 노력에 비해 주민참여의 공익적 가치가 충분하다고 인정될 때 진정한 주민참여는 확대될 수 있다고 판단된다.

4. 사회적 약자의 참여 강화

앞서 언급한 바와 같이 도시계획의 과정에서 사회적 약자의 참여는 도시계획의 공익성과 정당성 강화에 큰 의미가 있다고 판단된다. 지구단위계획을 포함한 도시계획 분야에서 사회적 약자의 참여를 강화하기 위해서는 무엇보다 정보의 접근성을 강화할 필요가 있다. 특히 도시계획의 복잡하고 어려운 내용은 다양한 사회적 약자의 참여에 장애가 되고 있다. 복잡한 도시계획의 내용을 사회적 약자에게 알기 쉽게 설명하고 촉진자를 통해 사회적 약자의 의견을 이끌어내는 노력이 필요하다. 국토교통부의 지구단위계획 수립지침과 서울시의 지구단위계획 관리운영기준에도 사회적 약자의 참여에 대한 매뉴얼이 포함될 필요가 있다. 사회적 약자가 누구인지 정의하고 이들이 참여할 수 있는 다양하고 구체적인 방법을 제시할 필요가 있다.

Enhancing Residents' Participation in the District Unit Plan Process

- Based on the District Unit Plan in Seoul, Korea -

1. Introduction

The UK has implemented an urban planning system that revolves around the nationalisation of development rights and planning approval. In contrast, Germany primarily regulates development activities through B-plans. Conversely, the United States has an urban planning system that revolves around the zoning system. In both Korea and the United States, the zoning system plays a crucial role in urban development. The district unit plan, similar to Germany's B-plan, is designed to address the deficiencies in the zoning system. The district unit plan is considered the essential component of the urban planning system in Korea.

The legal status of the district unit plan is contingent upon the specific attributes of the district unit plan. The district unit plan offers comprehensive instructions for certain construction operations within the district unit planning area in the form of concrete urban designs. District unit planning focuses on a particular area that has diverse, active, and specific features, whereas the zoning system is uniform, passive, and abstract. Resident participation should be emphasised in the district unit plan for this reason. By focusing on a specific location, the district unit plan allows for a clear definition of the citizens' participation goals. The district unit plan prioritises diverse strategies tailored to the specific location, with a particular emphasis on the crucial requirement for active involvement from locals. These residents have a strong affiliation with the place and have been closely monitoring it for a significant duration. Furthermore, it is extremely probable that active and particular plans will encroach into the property rights of residents, therefore necessitating the active action and involvement of people.

Since the introduction of the district unit plan in the Urban Planning Act in Korea in 2000, numerous research and initiatives focused on residents' involvement in the district unit plan have been conducted. The residents' involvement in the district unit plan, however, continues to be characterised by bureaucracy and adherence to procedures.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government has continually been supporting initiatives to enhance people' engagement in the district unit plan, aiming to assure its efficacy. In actuality, individuals are preoccupied with their own lives and show little concern for local matters, while public officials may lack proficiency in their roles. For example, officials are rotated into positions before acquiring experience, and planning experts are not effectively implementing the residents' involvement plan due to inadequate funding for the residents' participation sector. (Mok and Park, 2006, p. 110)

Plans devised by autonomous public officials, known as professional bureaucrats, can have many adverse consequences for the long-term viability of their execution. An administrative strategy that exclusively prioritises efficiency cannot be fully substantiated, and it is difficult to guarantee its long-term validity. Anticipating the conflict control effect of several stakeholders, especially local citizens, is particularly problematic. The active involvement of people in the formulation of administrative programmes is crucial and indispensable. (Choi, 2021, p. 119)

The district unit plan is a system where public authority over private property rights is used to achieve specific goals. In order for the results to be universally valid, they must be based on certain premises and supported by the planning process. The involvement of stakeholders in the selection of the district unit plan areas and the creation of the district unit plan will be a crucial step that can enhance the overall effectiveness of the outcomes. (Kim, 2002, p. 195)

This study investigates the concept of resident engagement and its importance in the district unit plan. Additionally, it proposes legislative and institutional improvements to encourage the active involvement of residents in the district unit plan, based on real-life examples.

1.1. Research Aim and Research Questions

Since the implementation of the district unit plan under the Urban Planning Act in 2000, numerous research and initiatives have been carried out in Korea to promote residents' involvement. Nevertheless, the involvement of residents in the planning of district units is predominantly ceremonial.

In other words, it is hard to deny the reality that residents' participation in various urban plans as well as district unit plans is limited. In addition, it is difficult to deny the limitations of the legitimacy of urban planning that does not have sufficient resident participation. The reality is that public officials and planners recognize the need for residents to participate, but their perception of residents' participation cannot be positive due to various difficulties caused by residents' participation, such as time and cost issues.

Hence, this study commences by posing the inquiry, "Is there a more fundamental approach to stimulate resident involvement in the district unit plan?"

Before addressing these issues, the question arises: "What is the actual resident's participation?" The question is asked, and the theories pertaining to inhabitants' participation are examined in relation to this matter. Furthermore, an inquiry of a more fundamental nature is posed: "Why is residents' participation necessary in the district unit plan?" The imperative of residents' engagement in the district unit plan will be analysed in terms of the public interest.

Essentially, the purpose of this study is to address the inquiry, "What is the fundamental approach to activating residents' participation in the district unit plan?" In addition, conceptual analysis will be preceded by questions such as "What is the actual residents' participation?" "Why is residents' participation necessary in the district unit plan?"

In particular, the question of how residents can actively participate in district unit plans can provide valuable data to enhance their participation in various urban plans in Korea, given the similarities between the processes of establishing district unit plans and other urban plans, such as Urban Management Plans, as well as the comparable patterns of resident involvement.

1.2. Scope of the study

Initially, in terms of the study's content scope, as previously said, this research aims to uncover the true meaning of resident participation and elucidate the reasons for its necessity in the district unit plan. This study will specifically examine the legal and institutional issues, operating under the idea that enhancing the legal and institutional framework is essential for effective resident engagement. This study will specifically examine literature data and actual district unit planning situations from the past 5 years. Since the inclusion of the district unit plan in the Urban Planning Act in 2000, there has been some progress in concerns concerning resident participation. This study will specifically analyse data from the past five years to identify areas for improvement. In addition, the geographic scope of this study focuses on Seoul, but it is judged that the difference between Seoul and Korea as a whole is not significant.

1.3. Method of the study

The theoretical background of this study, The concept of resident involvement, and the connection between residents’ participation and the public interest, will be carried out through the analysis of previous studies, and the overview of the district unit plan will be utilised as well. During the course of establishing a district unit plan, the statutes, guidelines, etc. related to the participation of residents shall be examined individually. In addition, the actual district unit plan establishment cases will be examined to verify how the laws and guidelines investigated are being utilised in the actual district unit plan process. Subsequently, following a thorough examination of the district unit plan establishment case analysis, actual district unit plan will be evaluated from the perspective of residents’ participation theory and public interest.

The objective of this study is to investigate the answer, 'What is the fundamental way to boost resident participation in the district unit plan?' and when the fundamental remedy is linked to enhancing the institutional aspect, conducting a comprehensive research of relevant laws and guidelines and analysing them during the process of constructing the district unit plan is considered to be of great significance. Furthermore, this study used a qualitative approach instead of a quantitative approach  because there is a limit to simply quantifying the degree of resident participation.

This study aims to restrict the scope of resident involvement in the district unit plan to a single location. There is doubt as to whether a single case can accurately represent the full process of district unit planning. Nevertheless, this study aims to extensively examine the residents' involvement throughout the entire process of district unit planning. This approach is deemed highly effective in observing the establishment of a district unit plan with substantial resident engagement.

In particular, the Seongbuk-dong district unit plan covered in this study is a low-rise residential area that needs to preserve historical resources, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government's district unit plan establishment standards classify these places as places with the greatest need for resident participation, so it is considered more meaningful than other cases to examine resident participation in the process of establishing the Seongbuk-dong district unit plan.

Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Theories Related to Residents’ Participation

Two exemplary approaches for assessing civic engagement are the "Spectrum of Public Participation" from IAP2 and Arnstein's "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." In addition, Nabatchi developed a modified model to overcome the shortcomings of the IAP2 paradigm. The level of citizen engagement in the district unit plan will be gauged using the three theories that will be covered in the following discussion.

2.1.1. Arnstein model (The Ladder of Citizen Participation)

Citizen participation is divided into eight stages by the Arnstein model, starting with manipulation, which is a non-participation stage that has no bearing on decision-making, and ending with citizen control, which is the last stage of civic power where decision-making is accomplished through civic control.

An official advisory group might be used to observe the manipulation stage. The advisory committee is only formally involved in decision-making, and officials inform or counsel them. Socially disadvantaged people are seen as objects of healing during the therapy stage.

It is wrong to attribute problems exclusively to people from poor social backgrounds and to treat them as if they are innately weak or stupid. The two instances given above are categorised by Arnstein as non-participation.

Teaching people about their rights and obligations is referred to as "informing." This strategy presents issues, too, as it frequently takes a one-sided approach and happens after all decisions have been taken. Consultation entails the collection and evaluation of citizen opinions.

As an illustration, consulting may entail setting up neighbourhood gatherings, holding public hearings, and conducting surveys. A further issue with one-sidedness arises when suitable feedback is not given. A common instance of "placation" is the appointment of socially disadvantaged people to committees in order to placate them. However, they might stay merely symbolic players if they don't know how to use their true impact. According to Arnstein, the three aforementioned instances are tokenism.

The process of negotiating the redistribution of power to citizens is referred to as "partnership." Rather than being innate to nature, these powers are acquired by citizens via persistent demands and agreements. The degree to which citizens have the main decision-making authority during negotiations is referred to as "delegated power." The ultimate state in which citizens have total authority is known as "citizen control." The three described above are classified by Arnstein as "citizen power". (Arnstein, 2019)

Figure 1. A Ladder of Citizen Prticipation (source; Arnstein, 2019)	Figure 2. Spectrum of Public Participation & Communication Mode (source; Nelimarkka et al., 2014)

2.1.2. IAP2 model (Spectrum of Public Participation)

Based on the Arnstein model, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP) presented a five-stage Spectrum of Public Participation in 2007. The IAP2 model's "information" provision is the first stage. It helps citizens grasp options and issues by giving them information through emails or websites. "Consultation," the second step, is hearing what the public has to say about choices or alternatives. This procedure offers insightful input on how public opinion might influence decision-making.

Surveys, focus groups, and public hearings make up the majority of it. In order to continuously comprehend and take into account the interests of the inhabitants, the third step, "Involvement," entails close contact with them. Direct reflection is occurring for the several options that have been produced through workshops, conversations, and voting.

In the fourth phase, "Collaboration," residents collaborate on all fronts to identify options or fixes for development. At this point, the greatest amount of citizen input and recommendations is incorporated into the final decision.  Some civic advisory committees can also be considered as a collaborative process.

Empowerment is the last stage and the pinnacle of collaborative decision-making. The outcome of a civic jury or referendum will determine whether or not the policy is implemented. (Lee and Suh, 2018, pp. 63-86.)

2.1.3. Nabatchi model (Communication Mode)

A revised model was introduced by Nabatchi (2012) in order to solve the shortcomings of the IAP2 model. The level of citizen influence determines the categorization of the IAP2 model. While "citizen influence" suggests desirable results, it does not certain that citizens will take part in the process.

Nabatchi proposed three forms of communication—one-way, two-way, and deliberative—between citizens and public stakeholders in order to address this problem. Establishing mutually acceptable standards and values through cooperation can be seen as the goal of deliberate communication. The transition from one-way communication to deliberate communication is highlighted by the Nabatchi (2012) paradigm. (Nelimarkka et al., 2014, p. 3)

2.2. Residents’ Participation from the Perspective of the Public Interest

2.2.1. Concept and Importance of the Public Interest

What is the public interest? It is challenging to come up with a consensus response or explanation for this. On the public interest, however, different viewpoints and theories have been put up. According to Han (2021, pp. 51-57.), Four primary categories can be used to classify public interest.

Initially, this idea interprets the public interest via the utilitarian lens of Jeremy Bentham. In other words, "maximising total utility" is the lens through which the public interest is seen. In order to maximise the total of all people's interests in society, this perspective defines the public interest in terms of each person's private interests. (Yoo, 2006, p. 119).

Second, it is the view that the public interest is the ultimate objective or "best" that society should pursue. The public interest is defined as the actualization of the ideals of justice, equity, freedom, and basic human rights. It differs from people's real values in society, including their own interests. (Kim H. G., 2002, p. 199.)

Third, the public interest might be defined as the universally shared common interests of society's members. The public interest and common interests include things like drinking water supplies, public transportation networks, and high-quality educational opportunities. (Yoo, 2006, pp. 120). The source of the public interest is a state or society, which differs from a mere collection of individuals in that it has its own identity, rights, and interests. additionally, it is the origin of public interest. (Han, 2021, pp. 51~52).

Lastly, It's an opinion that prioritises the process of forming the public interest over the actual content of the interest. Put another way, the interaction of group interests results in the public interest. This acknowledges the existence of multiple interest groups in society and that the public interest is the outcome of their democratic dispute settlement and compromise. (Kim, H 2002, p. 564).  It is argued that the public interest is undemocratic since it is determined by a small group of bureaucrats, and that as it is a normative value, individual differences will inevitably exist. The content of the public interest depends on who determines what the actual public interest is. The procedural viewpoint, on the other hand, sees the public interest as a democratic process of different interests adjusting to one another rather than as something that exists a priori. (Han, 2021, p. 52).

The notion of public interest holds significance as it provides validation for urban planning that restricts private property and serves as a foundation for diverse policy determinations. Considering the characteristics of modern society, where the concept of public interest is increasingly diverse and complex, and considering the characteristics of modern society, where various interests emerge, the public interest in the procedural aspect of democratic decision-making is becoming more and more important.

2.2.2. The Need for Residents’ Participation and the Public Interest.

For the following reasons, residents’ participation in the district unit plan is essential in terms of the public interest. First, resident participation is necessary in terms of the public interest of Bentham's utilitarian perspective. If a small number of people establish a district unit plan, it is difficult to fully understand the various interests of the region and the needs of individual residents and reflect them in the plan.

However, the participation of various residents is an opportunity to lift their requirements to the surface and reflect them in the plan. Second, citizens must take part in matters of public concern from the standpoint of the "ultimate object or best." Protection of individual property rights is an important value of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and participation of residents is regarded as an important procedure for protecting individual property rights.

Various precedents in Korean courts treat the lack of these procedures as a very important issue as they infringe on individuals' property rights. Third, resident participation is necessary in terms of the public interest from the perspective of 'universally shared common interests of society's members'.

This is related to the plan for the installation of various infrastructure in the district unit plan. Lastly, residents’ participation is essential in relation to the public interest in the procedural aspect. When various public interests collide, it is not desirable for some to arbitrarily determine which public interests are more important.

Many people will comply with the plan when it is drawn up through a process of rationalizing different views. In particular, considering the complexity of modern society, this procedural aspect of public interest can be the most important reason for resident participation. According to Kim Se-yong (Kim S.Y., 2002, p. 196-197), such resident participation will consequently play an important role in completing local autonomy by strengthening resident capabilities.

Chapter 3. ‘District Unit Plan’

3.1. The Significance of the District Unit Plan

3.1.1 Introduction and Definition of the District Unit Plan

The UK's urban planning system relies on the nationalisation of development rights and planning permission, while Germany regulates development activities through B-plan. Conversely, the United States has an urban planning system that revolves around the zoning system. In Korea, similar to the United States, the zoning system plays a crucial role. Additionally, the district unit plan, which is comparable to Germany's B-plan, addresses the shortcomings of the zoning system in Korea.

The zoning system is an urban plan that establishes building standards, including use, height, building-to-land ratios, and floor area ratios for a given area. However, it is challenging to precisely and comprehensively regulate and plan the city's density or the characteristics of individual sites in three dimensions.

Accordingly, In 1980, the Building Act implemented an Urban Design System, while in 1991, the Urban Planning Act developed the Detailed Planning Area System. Subsequently, the Urban Design System and the Detailed Planning System have been jointly implemented.

However, due to growing criticism regarding the redundant nature of these two systems without substantial advantages, they were consolidated into the District Unit Plan through the revision of the Urban Planning Act in 2000. The District Unit Plans have their origins in the Bebauungsplan of Germany and the District Plan of Japan. (Park, 2022, p.7)

According to National Land Planning and Utilization Act (2024), the term "district-unit plan" refers to an Urban Management Plan designed to optimise land use, enhance functionality, improve aesthetics, ensure a better environment, and systematically and strategically manage a specific area as part of an overall urban plan.

3.1.2. Legal Status and Characteristics of the District Unit Plan

According to the National Land Planning and Utilisation Act, the urban planning system is comprised of the Metropolitan Plan, Urban Master Plan, Urban Management Plan (which includes the Zoning Plan, Urban Planning facilities Plan, and District Unit Plan), and the execution plan.

The District Unit Plan is one of the Urban Management Plans and is a lower-level plan of the Metropolitan Plan and the Urban Master Plan in the urban planning system. Hence, the District Unit Plan delineates the trajectory of the region as proposed by higher-level plans, taking into account the unique circumstances of a particular area. It also provides directives for lower-level plans, such as execution plans or architectural plans. (Park, 2022, p.8)

Urban Management Plans, such as District Unit Plans, differ from the Metropolitan Plan and the Urban Master Plan in that they possess legal authority over individuals. This can be a more important reason for resident participation in district unit planning.

3.2. Contents of the District Unit Plan

According to the National Land Planning and Utilisation Act(Article 52 ; Details of District-Unit Plans), The district unit plan may include the following contents.

① Subdivision or alteration of a special-purpose area or special-purpose district within the scope prescribed by Presidential Decree;

①-2 Matters that disuse the existing specific-use district and replace restrictions on uses, kinds and sizes of buildings or other facilities in such specific use district;

② Arrangement and size of infrastructure prescribed by Presidential Decree;

③ Size of a group of areas surrounded by roads, or of a group of land zoned for a planned development and improvement, and a creation plan therefor;

④ Restrictions on the use of buildings, and the maximum or minimum limit on the building-to-land ratio, floor area ratio, or height of buildings;

⑤ Plans for the arrangement, type, color or building line of buildings;

⑥ Environmental control and scenery plans;

⑦ Traffic control plan in consideration of pedestrian safety, etc.;

⑧ Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, necessary to rationalize land utilization, and to increase the functions, etc. of the cities, the agricultural, forest and fishery villages.

3.3. History of the District Unit Plan

3.3.1. Bebauungsplan(B-plan) in Germany

The German municipality's urban plan, Bauleitplanung, is based on the Federal Construction Code (BauGB). All rights regarding Bauleitplanung are guaranteed rights to municipalities at the constitutional level. The Bauleitplanung consists of two phases: the Flächenutzungsplan (F-plan) as an urban master plan and the Beauungsplan (B-plan) as a binding plan.

The F-plan essentially dictates the land use categories over the entire Gemeinde, aligning with the framework of urban planning and serving as the  Urban Master Plan according to the National Land Planning and Utilisation Act of Korea.

The F-plan is mostly a non-binding planning document, although it provides extensive and specific information regarding land use in the area. Furthermore, after the development policy is established in the F-plan, it becomes feasible to control specific construction operations by formulating a B-plan for each district. The B-plan, also known as the Verbindlacher Bauleitplan, is a legally binding document that directly affects citizens. (Park, 2022, p.14)

The B-plan closely resembles Korea's district unit plan, while there are some notable distinctions. In the case of Germany, construction activities cannot be carried out even on one's own land until land use is designated through B-plan in an area other(external, Au ß enbereich) than the established urban area (imZusammenhang beauter Ortsteile). Accordingly, if Gemeinde establishes an urban plan such as a B-plan in accordance with the Federal Construction Code, this will soon be a beneficial act to the owner.

Consequently, Germany imposes the responsibility on landowners to install infrastructure, taking into account the rise in land value during the establishment of a B-plan. In Korea, on the other hand, construction can generally be conducted on privately held land, but it is subject to additional limitations imposed by district unit plans. Occasionally, regulations can be eased by means of district unit plans, which then places the responsibility on landowners to develop infrastructure in response to the rise in land value. (Park, 2022, p.16).

3.3.2. Introduction of the District Unit Plan

Korea's urban planning system was implemented based on the US zoning system, which establishes predetermined guidelines for land use and development scale. The zoning system, which strictly separates different uses, posed challenges in achieving diversity in urban functions and limited the applicability of problem-solving strategies to address issues such as the decline of established cities in Korea. (Lee, 2007, p.3)

The urban environment has deteriorated due to rapid economic growth and supply-oriented urban development in the 1960s and 1970s. This decline in quality prompted the implementation of the Urban Design System under the 1980 Building Act and the Detailed Planning System under the 1991 Urban Planning Act.

Both systems shared a same objective, which was to address the belief that the existing zoning system alone was insufficient for effective control of the city. There was a need to enhance the control over the urban environment by introducing additional measures alongside the Zoning System. The birth of these systems was influenced by Germany's B-plan, the U.S. Urban Planning, and Japan's District Plan. (Yang, 2002, p.93)

Urban Design System and Detailed Planning System differed due to variations in the underlying legislation. The urban design was primarily guided by the Building Act. While the urban planning measures were inadequate, there were extensive regulations governing the specific aspects of building contents. Conversely, the Detailed Planning System typically included urban planning measures like land use and urban planning amenities in the area, while rules on buildings were only focused on key aspects such as use, size, and height. (Yang, 2002, p.92-93)

These two systems exhibited significant similarities and were operated separately with their own legal frameworks. Consequently, citizens experienced confusion and contributed to a state of disarray in terms of urban planning administration. Thus, the problem was overcome by integrating the aforementioned two systems into District Unit Plan via the modification of the Urban Planning Act in 2000. (Yang, 2002, p.93)

3.4. Status of establishment of the District Unit Plan

According to Choi, Lee and Kim (2022, p.35-36), as of 2019, there were a total of 10,394 District Unit Planning areas (2,717㎢), of which 6,446 (1,791㎢) were urban areas, and 3,948 (926㎢) were outside urban areas. This shows that District Unit Plans are concentrated in urban areas, especially in the Seoul metropolitan area. In addition, according to the Seoul Metropolitan Government, there were a total of 467 District Unit Planning areas in Seoul as of 2019, which has grown 3.8 times compared to 2001 when Urban Design districts and Detailed Planning areas were converted to the District Unit Planning.

Figure 3. Distribution of District Unit Planning Areas in Korea in 2019 (source; Choi, Lee and Kim, 2022, p.36)	Figure 4. Distribution of District Unit Planning Areas in Seoul in 2019 (source; Seoul Metropolitan Government's Standards for Managing and Operating District Unit Plans, 2022, p.9)

Chapter 4. Residents’ Participation in the District Unit Plan

Residents' participation is bound to be more emphasized in the district unit plan, where the target site is limited to some areas or some residents, and the results of the plan greatly affect the property rights of the residents.

The district unit plan is to solve the problem of a specific area in the city and aims for a small bottom-up plan as a plan to reflect the unique characteristics and needs of the area. Therefore, resident participation is one of the very important factors to ensure the feasibility of the plan, and it is natural for the planning process to be open to residents and to collect their opinions. (Kim S.Y., 2002, p.198-199)

In the following analysis, the involvement of residents in the District Unit Plan will be assessed by categorising it into three sections: Legal Obligations, Reiated Guidelines, and Residents' Proposals..

4.1. Legal Obligations

4.1.1. Residents’ Listening System

According to the guidelines for establishing District Unit Plans by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the process of listening to residents' opinions is mandatory after the basic investigation and preparation of district unit plans.

Basic Investigation
⬇
Preparation of the District Unit Plan
⬇
Residents’ Listening (Gathering Opinions from Residents)	(legal obligation for resident’ participation)
⬇
Planning of the District Unit Plan
⬇
Consultation with Relevant Administrative Agencies (processed within 30 days)
⬇
Related Deliberation (joint deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee and the Building Committee)
⬇
Decisions and Public Notice	(legal obligation for resident’ participation)
⬇
General Access	(legal obligation for resident’ participation)

<Table 1. Procedures for the District Unit Plan>

(source; National Land Planning And Utilization Act)

According to the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (2024), In the process of listening to residents' opinions, the prepared plan is simultaneously announced on "The public gazette of the relevant local government or at least two general daily newspapers" and "The website, etc. of the relevant local government" and the plan should be made accessible to the public for more than 14 days. Furthermore, this procedure called ‘Public Inspection’ is also required for the majority of urban plannings and development initiatives.

This process of listening to residents' opinions is legally handled very strictly. The Supreme Court also ruled that the decision of urban planning with defects in such public announcement and publication procedures is illegal, saying, "The public announcement and publication of the contents of the urban planning plan is to reasonably adjust the interests of many stakeholders to prevent unfair infringement of the people's freedom of rights and to reflect the people's will in the process to democratize the administration and secure trust." (Park and Jang, 2020, p.53)

In addition, according to Article 28 (4) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, when important details of the plan are changed through residents' opinions or committee deliberations, the plan must be re-announced and made accessible to residents.

These methods for soliciting citizens' opinions are rigorously adhered to in terms of formality. If the required legal processes are not followed, the plan will be rendered invalid. Nevertheless, the issue lies in the lack of tangible engagement by residents beyond the mere adherence to formal procedures.

The primary issue is that it is difficult for residents to recognize the announcement, and even if they are aware of the announcement, it is difficult to access related information. It is true that the method of simultaneously publicizing in the local government's press or two or more general daily newspapers and media such as the local government's Internet homepage is a very formal method, and it is very difficult for ordinary residents to recognize this.

In particular, the announcement in more than one newspaper was first introduced in the Urban Planning Act in 1981, and due to preferential disputes, it is not possible to announce in two specific daily newspapers, and the reality is that residents cannot subscribe to all daily newspapers and see them every day for announcements that may come out at any time. In addition, in order to read the detailed plan, residents must visit the local government to check the plan themselves, which also restricts residents' access to information. (Park and Jang, 2020, p.52)

4.1.2. Decision Notification and General Access

When the plan is finalized after deliberation by the Committee, the details of the decision shall be announced in accordance with Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and shall be made accessible to the public. The notification method should be made through the official gazette of the central or local government and the Internet website.

Decision Notification and General Access provide an opportunity for many people, including residents, to reconfirm the final plan. However, just like Resident’ Listening System, it is difficult for residents to check the fact of the decision notice itself, and there is a problem that they have to visit the local government directly to confirm the details of the plan.

4.2. Related Guidelines

Based on Seoul, guidelines related to resident participation include the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's Guidelines for Establishing District Unit Plans and the Seoul Metropolitan Government's Standards for Managing and Operating District Unit Plans. The contents related to resident participation in the two guidelines have the nature of non-legal options.

As per Section 3 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's Guidelines for Establishing District Unit Plans, it is possible to conduct surveys and resident briefing sessions for local residents, including stakeholders like landowners, if necessary. The purpose of these activities is to gather residents' opinions adequately and discuss matters that require their cooperation in advance, in order to ensure a reasonable plan.

Accorcing to the Seoul Metropolitan Government's Standards for Managing and Operating District Unit Plans 1-2, if autonomous and continuous management of residents is necessary to preserve local characteristics, the composition of a public-private consultative body is to be reviewed.

In addition, the Seoul Metropolitan Government's Standards for Managing and Operating District Unit Plans define "Resident Agreements" and "Regional Management" and allow the use of two concepts if necessary when establishing District Unit Plans. The term "Resident Agreements" in the above means that residents (concepts including those who work or rent in the region) determine and operate their own regulations on matters necessary for mutual development and environmental improvement in consideration of the continuously changing regional characteristics and environment.

The term "Regional Management" means all activities that lay the foundation for regional revitalization by managing and operating a group of public spaces led by the private sector.

The common feature of the guidelines of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Seoul Metropolitan Government described above is that the contents are rather declarative and abstract. Considering that only the minimum resident participation procedures set by the law are being implemented due to time and cost issues in the actual District Unit Plan establishment process, these problems need to be improved.

4.3. Residents’ Proposals

In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Korea decided against the constitutional inconsistency of restrictions on behavior within urban planning areas, pointing out that in order to constitutionally limit the property rights of the people in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the public should prepare various ways to restore the proportionality between the infringement of property rights and the public interest, such as establishing financial compensation regulations.

After the Constitutional Court's decision, the Urban Planning Act was fully revised in 2000 and the regulations on 'Residents' Proposals' were newly established, and the current National Land Planning and Utilization Act is taking over this regulation. (Choi, 2021, p.122)

In the case of 'Residents' Proposals' for formulating or changing district unit plans, a lot of cost is inevitable with the help of experts, but the proposer generally bears all of the cost. For this reason, 'Residents' Proposals' are realized only when economic benefits such as apartment reconstruction are secured, and in general cases, they are not actively used. (Choi, 2021, p.119-132)

Chapter 5. Case Study

5.1. Overview of Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan

5.1.1. Status of the Site

The Seongbuk-dong area is a residential area with a natural environment in which Bukaksan Mountain is located between Hanyang Fortress and Jeongneung, a World Heritage Site, and Seongbukcheon Stream flows, and has the identity of the fortress city of Seoul.

In order to create a world-class landmark with a combination of history and culture and restored natural and ecological values, the Seoul Metropolitan Government established the "Seongbuk-dong Traditional Culture Experience Zone" in 2009 and proposed various projects, and based on this, it was embodied as a District Unit Planning Area (1,368,312.7㎡) in 2013.

To create a historical and cultural district, a public sector project plan was established, including the creation of a historical and cultural hub and exploration course, and a regional specialization plan suitable for local conditions was established through private sector management guidelines.

Since the initial decision, various public projects have been carried out, and despite various changes, it is still managed as a detached residential area with its own quiet settlement. These characteristics were reflected in higher plans such as the 2030 Seoul Living Area Plan established in 2018, and there are tasks to continuously manage residential areas with historical and cultural characteristics, utilize local assets, and come up with management plans for areas lifted from redevelopment areas. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.2)

5.1.2. Reorganization of the District Unit Plan

Although old buildings and historical and cultural facilities are scattered in Seongbuk-dong, their value has not been properly evaluated due to the lack of systematic management of cultural heritage in Seongbuk-dong and low recognition.

Various environmental improvement projects were carried out due to the first district unit plan established in 2013, but various public projects were not implemented due to budget problems and the district unit plan caused disadvantages to residents' exercise of property rights, which required overall supplementation. In particular, due to the repeated lifting and re-promotion of redevelopment areas and changes in conditions such as the lifting of unexecuted urban planning facilities, it is necessary to inspect them and prepare comprehensive management measures.

Therefore, in the reorganization of the district unit plan, the pre-established district unit plan was checked to adjust the area boundaries, and the specific criteria necessary to protect and strengthen the landscape characteristics of the area were supplemented. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.2)

5.1.3. Key details of the plan and the planning process

First, the creation of historical, cultural, and tourism infrastructure for the preservation of historical and traditional cultural resources in Seongbuk-dong, Second, prepare comprehensive guidelines for the formation of residential areas differentiated from other regions,

Finally, the main content of the district unit plan is to establish a practical project action plan in which residents, merchants, local experts, and organizations participate together.

In this plan, it was reorganized while maintaining the pre-established district unit plan stance. After conducting a condition analysis and physical resource survey through a current status survey, specific guidelines for the public and private sectors, such as determining area boundaries and urban planning facilities, were prepared.

In particular, a plan for the composition and operation of a resident council was proposed to actively reflect the opinions of local residents. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.4)

2013. 11. 28	Notice of the district unit plan of Seongbuk-dong Historical and Cultural District (Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2013-403)
2018. 07. 06	Initiation of a plan
2018. 07. 27	Initiation report
2018. 08. 16	1st working-level meeting
2018. 09. 27	2nd working-level meeting
2018. 10. ~ 2019. 04.	Seongbuk-dong residents and Seongbuk-dong expert workshop 7 times: Seongbuk Hwadam
2018. 11. 13	3th working-level meeting
2018. 12. 03	4th working-level meeting
2019. 03. 20	Seongbuk-gu Council Report
2019. 03. 27	5th working-level meeting
2019. 04. 26	Seongbuk-gu General Architects Advisory Meeting
2019. 06. 25	6th working-level meeting
2019. 09. 23 – 10. 29	Working-level consultation with the relevant departments of Seongbuk-gu Office (Culture Park, Gansong Art Museum, Seongbuk Elementary School)
2019. 11. 05	Seongbuk-gu Mayor's Brief Report
2019. 11. 11	Seongbuk-gu Mayor's Interim Report
2020. 06. 25	Seoul Metropolitan Government's Urban Management Division Report (1st)
2020. 07. 02	Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seongbuk-gu Joint Report (1st)
2020. 07. 23	Seoul Metropolitan Government's Urban Management Division Report (2nd)
2020. 08. 04	Seoul Metropolitan Government's Urban Management Division Report (3st)
2020. 08. 07	Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seongbuk-gu Joint Report (2nd)
2020. 09. 24. – 10. 16.	Residents’ Listening and Consultation with Relevant Administrative Agencies A briefing session for residents (Online,; Youtube)
2020. 10. 08.	A briefing session for residents (On-site)
2020. 11. 04.	Pre-consultation by the Joint Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture (on-site visit, 1st)
2020. 11. 19.	Pre-consultation by the Joint Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture (2nd)
2020. 12. 07. – 12. 11.	Pre-consultation by the Seongbuk-gu Urban Planning Committee
2021. 03. 25.	Pre-consultation by the Joint Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture (3th)
2021. 04. 28. – 05. 04.	Pre-consultation by the Seongbuk-gu Building Committee
2022. 05. 25.	Deliberation by the Joint Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture (1st)
2022. 06. 22.	Deliberation by the Joint Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture (final)
2022. 07. 21. - 08. 05	Repeated Residents’ Listening process
2022. 08. 25.	Decision Notification and General Access (Notice no. 2022-366)

<Table 2. Establishment of the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan>

(Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.11)

5.2. Residents’ participation in the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan

5.2.1. Legal obligations

① Residents’ Listening

In relation to the reorganization of the Seongbuk-dong district unit plan, a notice of reading was conducted to hear the opinions of residents in accordance with Article 28 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 8 of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use. The notice period is 23 days from September 24, 2020 to October 16, 2020, and the reading places are Seongbuk-gu Office's Urban Planning Division and Seongbuk-dong Community Center, and residents' opinions were received by Seongbuk-gu Office's Urban Planning Division. (Seongbuk-gu Office, September 24, 2020)

In the process of listening to residents' opinions, various residents' opinions were presented. There were demands to exclude specific areas from the district unit planning area, demands to ease the maximum development scale, demands to open roads, demands for building arrangements, and demands for deregulation of use. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.13)

② Decision Notification and General Access

Considering that the plan originally disclosed to residents through the Residents' Listening process was changed during the planning process, it went through the process of informing residents of the plan changes and hearing opinions, for more than 14 days, as in the original Public Inspection and Residents' Listening process. Since then, the Decision Notification and General Access procedure prescribed by law has been carried out. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.11)

5.2.2. Non-legal options

① Workshops of Residents' Consultative Body

From the initial stage of the plan, the Residents' Consultative Body was recruited to reorganize the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan in order to provide a bridgehead for residents' participation and communication. Using the opinions of local residents and experts, supplementary matters in the established plan, changes in local conditions, issues and problems, and future plans and planning tasks desired by residents were derived. the Residents' Consultative Body were recruited through the website, and anyone interested in Seongbuk-dong could be recruited. In the workshop, which lasted for a total of four weeks experts and residents conducted workshops together to diagnose Seongbuk-dong and consider the future through mutual sharing of opinions, and finally, a briefing session on residents' opinions was held to materialize the planning issue. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.12)

② Residents' Self-Governing Council report

In the process of establishing a district unit plan, the Residents' Consultative Body, a resident organization for resident participation, was formed, and the Residents' Consultative Body may have different opinions from the existing resident organizations formed in the village.

Therefore, the Residents' Self-Governance Council report can be an important opportunity to improve these problems. In the process of planning, it is necessary to coordinate interests and opinions between the newly created resident organization and the existing resident organization. The report to the previously established Residents' Self-Governance Council is considered meaningful in this respect. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.12)

③ 2 rounds of expert meetings

In Seongbuk-dong, which has a very important meaning in urban planning and architecture, including location and historical values, a broad understanding of history and cultural research, and urban planning and architecture was required. To this end, experts from various fields related to Seongbuk-dong were appointed as advisors to set the planning direction.

Seongbuk-in workshops were held twice to reflect changes in urban and architectural conditions in the area at the beginning of the task. Experts closely related to the region were able to clearly understand the District Unit Planning system and suggest directions for residents' participation and planning. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.12)

④ Online briefing session for residents (One-time)

During the Resident's Listening period, an online briefing session was held through the official YouTube channel of Seongbuk-gu Office, and 168 resident opinions submitted through the online briefing session were received and managed as official opinions of the Resident' Listening process.

The online briefing session explained the district unit plan easily from the residents' point of view, and residents who had difficulty attending the Residents' Consultative Body due to their busy personal schedules were able to help them understand the progress of the District Unit Plan regardless of time and place. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2020)

5.2.3. Residents’ Proposal

The reorganization of the Seongbuk-dong district unit plan is different from the residents' proposal because the plan was initiated by the Seongbuk-gu Office. However, three Special Planning Districts and two Preliminary Special Planning Districts within the Seongbuk-dong district unit planning area are likely to implement the process of changing district unit planning according to the Residents' Proposal method in the future.

These all have the characteristics of a small number of owners and a large area. According to the Seoul Metropolitan Government's Urban Planning Dictionary (2020), Special Planning District refers to an area in which a separate development plan is created and accepted as a District Unit Plan when a creative development plan is required or enough time is needed to write a plan. In addition, the Preliminary Special Planning District is designated for places that are likely to be transformed into a Special Planning District in the future. (Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.134)

Table 3. (Preliminary) Special Planning District In the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Planning Area

(Source; Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, p.134)

Site	Area	Ownership	Purpose of designation
Seongbuk Primary School Area Special planning District	14,824㎡	public ownership	Establishment of a base facility for tourism and culture infrastructure according to the restoration of Hanyang Wall Use of the Community-centered Space as the starting space for Seongbuk-dong's historical and cultural exploration
The Kansong Museum of Art Special Planning District	19,723.2㎡	two people	Designation of a special planning area so that it can be decided as a cultural facility when the demands and plans for the construction of a permanent exhibition hall of the Kansong Art Museum are embodied in the future
The area of the bear's house Special Planning District	23,336㎡	a corporation	Introduction of convenience and support facilities, such as guest houses, in accordance with the plan of Seongbuk-dong's historical and cultural district and regional characteristics in the future
Nakwon row house Area Preliminary Special Planning District	3,508㎡	39 people	In order to promote the reconstruction of the old defective housing (1978) the establishment of a detailed construction plan in the future
Seongbuk 4 Redevelopment Released Area Preliminary Special Planning District	30,941㎡	a number of individuals	It is a poor old residential area located in a hilly area and requires planning improvement measures following the cancellation of the housing redevelopment (scheduled) area and planning guidelines in harmony with the entire landscape of Seongbuk-dong

5.3. Evaluation based on the theories of Resident Participation

The 'A Ladder of Citizen Participation' theory of the 'Arnstein model' discussed earlier confirmed that the stages of resident participation are largely divided into three stages: Nonpartisan, Degree of Tokenism, and Degree of Citizen Power.

The reorganization of the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan goes beyond Teraphy and Manipulation, the Nonparticipation stage, and shows the Degree of Tokenism stage. It has been through several processes over a long period of time to inform various information using resident workshops and social media, and through this process, various opinions of residents were collected and shared (Consultation).

In addition, the reorganization of the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan also includes some "Degree of Citizen Power" stages, in that most of the actual plans start with complaints proposed by residents. While not all residents' complaints were accepted without question, a significant portion of the final urban planning decisions were influenced by people' ideas. The plan was developed in collaboration with residents through workshops conducted from the early stages.

In addition, the IAP2 Model (Spectrum of Public Participation) divides resident participation into the stages of Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate, and Empower, which are the same as described above, and the 'Involve' stage can be observed in that active residents' intervention is made through the resident workshop process.

Finally, the Nabatchi model (Communication Mode) divides the stages of resident participation into One-Way Communication, Two-Way Communication, and Delivery Communication, and it is judged that in the reorganization of the Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan, Two-Way communication centered on resident workshops was carried out.

Based on the theory of resident participation, the limitations of the Seongbuk-dong district unit plan are found to be insufficient in relation to the stages of the Arnstein model's 'Degree of Citizen Power', the IAP2 model's 'Empower', and the Nabatchi model's 'Deliverative Communication'. This should be understood along with the political and social context of Korea's urban planning now, rather than simply a matter of urban planning.

The public announcement, which is a legal resident participation process, was conducted through two arbitrary daily newspapers and the Seongbuk-gu Office website, and it is believed that there were many difficulties for residents to recognize the public announcement process. Fortunately, the plan was shared with the residents through YouTube before the announcement. But this also seems to have limitations for many residents to be aware of the progress of the plan.

5.4. Evaluation based on the 'Public Interest'

Residents' participation in the reorganization of the Seongbuk-dong district unit plan is related to the public interest of Bentham's utilitarian perspective in that they fully understand the various interests of the region and the needs of individual residents and try to reflect them in the plan.

It is also related to the protection of individual property rights, which is an important value of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, by collecting opinions related to individual property rights of individual local residents.

In addition, it deals with the universally shared common interests of members of society, and coordinating them through various opinions in a situation where various public interests collide is related to the public interest in the procedural aspect. However, the lack of consideration for the socially underprivileged to actively participate can be regarded as insufficient in terms of the public interest. It can be pointed out as a regrettable part that there is no active separate process of collecting opinions on various socially weak people in the process of planning.

The participation of the socially weak in the urban planning process is related to the public interest in that it is the ultimate goal for society to pursue, and it is also related to the public interest in the procedural aspect in that it values the process of coordinating the opinions of various members of society. Therefore, the participation of the socially weak in the urban planning process is considered to be a very important part. However, it was difficult to find information related to the participation of the socially weak in the plan, and it was confirmed that there were no regulations related to the participation of the socially weak at the government level.

Chapter 6. Proposals

Even after the integration of the Detailed Planning System and the Urban Design System in 2000, discussions related to resident participation in the District Unit Plan continued, and various efforts for resident participation have been implemented and developed in the process of establishing the District Unit Plan.

Nevertheless, the implementation of resident engagement varies across district unit plans, resulting in a lack of genuine resident involvement. Therefore, it is judged that fundamental improvement is needed for resident participation from a more systematic perspective.

In other words, efforts for 'Degree of Citizen Power', 'Empower', and 'Deliverative Communication', which the theory of resident participation ultimately aims for, are needed. In addition, it is necessary to evaluate resident participation in terms of public interest and strengthen the public interest of resident participation.

To this end, the following is proposed to strengthen legal obligations related to resident participation, prepare an online platform for resident participation, and improve consensus and awareness on the need for resident participation.

6.1. Strengthening legal obligations related to residents' participation

① Diversifying methods of Public Announcement and Reading

In the district unit plan, the only legal obligation related to resident participation can be regarded as the Resident' Listening process. Indeed, this method is highly passive and can be accomplished with minimal resident involvement, as it primarily involves gathering feedback from residents once the plan is nearly finalised.

Additionally, it adheres to a formal structure. The process of listening to residents' opinions can be divided into two categories: Public Announcement and Reading. In the case of Public Announcement, it is very difficult for residents to recognize the fact, and in the case of reading, residents face challenges in conveniently accessing and perusing it due to its limited availability in a single location. According to Park and Jang (2020, p.50-52), the regulations for public announcement and reading in local daily newspapers were first introduced by the former Urban Planning Act, which was amended and promulgated as Act No. 3410 on March 31, 1981, and the passive announcement method created 40 years ago should no longer be maintained, considering that the public's consciousness is increasing over time.

In addition, as a countermeasure, it is necessary to use various methods such as SNS and e-mail so that residents can easily recognize it during the public announcement or reading period and submit their opinions. In addition, it is necessary to improve access to information by computerizing related information for easy reading.

② Mandatory Public Hearing before the process of Residents' Listening

In addition, a more important problem is that the Residents' Listening process proceeds after the plan is almost completed. In order to reflect the opinions of residents in the process of establishing the plan and to become practical resident participation, it is necessary to legally mandate a process such as Public Hearing at least at the beginning of the plan.

Providing information on how residents can participate in the process of establishing district unit plans through public hearing at the beginning of planning will ensure more active resident participation.

According to Choi (2021, p.134), it was necessary to make public hearing mandatory in the planning process and to make the process of collecting residents' opinions mandatory in the basic investigation process. In addition, it was considered necessary to specify the related matters in detail in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's Guidelines for Establishing District Unit Plans

③ Mandatory administrative support for Residents' Proposals

In addition, public institutions have led the establishment and change of district unit plans until now, but in the future, it is necessary to improve the system so that residents can directly plan to propose the establishment and change of district unit plans.

A representative example is the Residents' Proposal system, which is still being used only for private development projects that generate large-scale profits. According to Choi (2021, p.135), if residents make proposals to improve the public nature of the region, the head of the local government needs active support, such as holding advisory meetings, public hearings, and workshops before deciding and notifying whether to reflect the proposal.

In addition, if the public nature is recognized and the validity of the district unit plan is recognized as a result of the examination, it may be a good idea for public institutions to bear all or part of the cost. Considering the purpose and importance of the resident proposal system, administrative support for resident proposals needs to be strengthened through legislation.

6.2. Use of online platforms for residents' participation

The representative factors that hinder resident participation are information accessibility, variations in resident participation by plan, and cost and inefficiency of resident participation. Above all, it is the beginning of resident participation that residents can easily access various information, but the current situation indicates that it is very difficult for residents to access various information related to planning.

In addition, it is a fact that the manpower and budget that lead the district unit plan are different for each district unit plan, and accordingly, the residents' participation varies greatly. In addition, there may be a perception that resident participation is inefficient because it requires a lot of time and money.

In order to overcome these problems, it is judged that it can be helpful to use common online platforms at the national level or at the local government level. Common online platforms can be an important alternative to enhancing information accessibility to residents, reducing variations in resident participation by various plans, and reducing the time and cost associated with resident participation to improve the inefficiency of resident participation.

According to Park and Jang (2020, p. 55-56), as of September 2019, Korea's Internet utilization rate over the age of 3 accounted for 46.35 million out of 50.5 million people, accounting for 91.8%. By using the Internet, it is expected that anyone can easily check the related information repeatedly without being restricted by time and place by providing related information to the Internet.

In fact, for example, the Sheffield City Council in the UK has a separate Internet site related to planning permission and discloses important matters related to planning, including various documents related to planning permission, opinions from residents, and related cases.

Residents can participate in the planning process and express their opinions through the Internet site, view various related documents, and look at similar cases. While there is a clear difference between planning permission in the UK and district unit planning in Korea, it is considered worth referencing to build an online platform for resident participation and seek various resident participation centered on the established online platform.

Figure 5. Case of disclosure of planning permission information (source ; Sheffield City Council, 2021)

6.3. Formation of consensus on the need to participate in residents

As mentioned earlier, resident participation in district unit planning has various meanings in terms of public interest. Resident participation is related to the protection of individual property rights, which is an important value of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, by fully understanding the various interests of the region and the needs of individual residents.

In addition, the district unit plan deals with the universally shared common interests of members of society and is related to the procedural public interest that coordinates various public interests in the face of conflict by collecting and sharing various opinions. In this respect, it is necessary to recognize the public interest value of resident participation and form a consensus on the value of resident participation.

The reason for this is because constructing district unit plans through resident participation necessitates a substantial allocation of resources, including labour, cash, and time, unlike the prior government-led approach. It is judged that true resident participation can be expanded when the public interest value of resident participation is recognized as sufficient compared to these efforts.

6.4. Strengthening the participation of the socially disadvantaged

As mentioned earlier, the participation of the socially weak in the process of urban planning is considered to be of great significance in strengthening the public interest and legitimacy of urban planning. In order to strengthen the participation of the socially weak in the field of urban planning, including district unit planning, it is necessary to strengthen the accessibility of information above all else. In particular, the complex and difficult contents of urban planning are obstacles to the participation of various socially weak people. Efforts are needed to explain the complex contents of urban planning to the socially disadvantaged in an easy-to-understand manner and to elicit opinions from the socially disadvantaged through facilitators. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's Guidelines for Establishing District Unit Plans and the Seoul Metropolitan Government's Standards for Managing and Operating District Unit Plans also need to include a manual on the participation of the socially weak. It is necessary to define who the socially weak are and to present various and specific ways in which they can participate.

Chapter 7. Conclusion

7.1. Summary of the Study

The District Unit Plan in Korea is a system that represents the urban planning system along with the Zoning System. Since the implementation of the District Unit Plan under the Urban Planning Act in 2000, multiple research and initiatives have been carried out to promote residents' involvement.

However, residents' involvement in the District Unit Plan remains largely ceremonial. Therefore, this study begans with the question, "Is there a more fundamental approach to engage residents in the district unit plan?“

To find the answer to these questions, this study looked at two theoretical backgrounds. First, the Arnstein model (The Ladder of Citizen Partisan), the IAP2 model (Spectrum of Public Partisan), and the Nabatchi model (Communication Mode) were explained as theoretical backgrounds related to resident participation.

It was confirmed that they were aiming for 'Degree of Citizen Power', Empowerment, and Deliverive Communication, respectively. In addition, the legitimacy and justification of resident participation in the district unit plan were examined from the perspective of public interest theory, and it was confirmed that various public interests, especially in the procedural aspect, were closely related to resident participation in the District Unit Plan.

Specific means for resident participation in the district unit plan could be divided into Legal Obligations, Related Guides, and Residents' Proposals. Legal Observations could be divided into two categories: Residents' Listening System and ‘Decision Notification and General Access’, both of which identified great difficulties in residents accessing practical information.

In Related Guides, various measures for resident participation were proposed, but they were found to be ineffective because the regulations were not compulsory. In addition, it was confirmed that the implementation of Residents' Proposals requires expert help and a lot of cost, but in general, since the proposer bears all the costs, it can only be realized when economic benefits are secured, such as apartment reconstruction projects, and in general, it is not actively utilized.

By combining these research results, the following four measures are proposed to promote resident participation in the district unit plan.

First, it is to strengthen legal obligations related to resident participation. It is necessary to diversify the Public Announcement and Reading methods, which are the process of Residents' Listening, make Public Hearings mandatory before the process of Residents' Listening, and strengthen administrative support for Residents' Proposals.

Second, it is to establish an online platform for resident participation. Online platforming can be suggested as an alternative to reduce time and cost, which are obstacles to resident participation.

Third, it is to form a consensus on resident participation. Building a consensus on what role resident participation can play in terms of the public interest will help secure the manpower, time, and cost necessary for resident participation.

Fourth, strengthening the participation of the socially weak in the process of urban planning, including district unit plans, is closely related to the public interest and justification of urban planning.

7.2. Limitations and Significance of the Study

In relation to resident participation in the District Unit Plan, this study reviewed only one case called Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan, and it is judged that there is a clear limit to generalizing the whole with only one case. Analysis of resident participation cases through a number of case reviews will be able to provide a solid basis for supporting the claims of this study.

However, through the process of establishing a District Unit Plan in Seongbuk-dong, details related to residents' participation in the District Unit Plan could be confirmed.

This study described resident participation only in the process of establishing District Unit Plans among various urban plans. However, considering that various urban plans in Korea are very similar to the process of establishing District Unit Plans, it is judged that the problems and conclusions derived from this study can be applied not only to District Unit Plans but also to urban plans as a whole. The vitalization of resident participation in Korea's overall urban planning is considered essential for the public interest, especially in the procedural aspect.

(references)

Bae Woong-Kyoo and Lee In-Sung, 2005. Isssues for the Improvement and Vitalization of Hitherto District Unit Plans in Seoul Korea. JOURNAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OF KOREA Planning & Design, 21(9), pp.175-186.

Case of Disclosure of planning permission information In Sheffield, 2021, Sheffield City Council, viewed 21 May 2024,

<https://planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application>

Choi Jung Yoon, Lee Da Ye, Kim Dong Geun, 2022, The Direction of Improvement of District Unit Planning System in terms of Operation Conditions and Problems, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements. 21-01

Choi, Yong, 2021. A Study on the Improvement of Residents" Participation in the Establishment of District Unit Plans under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Study on Land & Public Law, 93, pp.115-139.

Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, 2024, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Article 25, viewed 21 May 2024,

<https://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?section=&menuId=1&subMenuId=15&tabMenuId=81&eventGubun=060101&query=%EA%B5%AD%ED%86%A0%EA%B3%84%ED%9A%8D%EB%B2%95+%EC%8B%9C%ED%96%89%EB%A0%B9>

National Land Planning and Utilization Act, 2024, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, viewed 21 May 2024, Article 28, 30, viewed 21 May 2024,

<https://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?section=&menuId=1&subMenuId=15&tabMenuId=81&eventGubun=060101&query=%EA%B5%AD%ED%86%A0%EA%B3%84%ED%9A%8D%EB%B2%95+%EC%8B%9C%ED%96%89%EB%A0%B9#undefined>

Han. S. H, 2021, Understanding of Urban Planning and Public Interest, Park Young-Sa, pp. 40-57.

Kim, H. G, 2002, The Ideology of Legitimacy in Administration and the Basis for Judgment of the Public Interest in the Constitution, Journal of Korean Public Administration, Vol. 14, No. 3.

Kim Hyo-Jung, 2022. Operational Status and Improvement Tasks of the District Unit Planning System. PLANNING AND POLICY, pp.116-117.

Kim Sei-yong, 2002.  A Study on the Citizen Participation in District Unit Planning. JOURNAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OF KOREA Planning & Design, 18(9), pp.195-202.

Kim Su-Jin, Song Jun-hwan, Oh Joo-hyung & Lee Bum-soo, 2016, Comparing land use control systems for a balance between flexibility and certainty, KRIHS, 16-15.

Lee Ja-Eun, Suh Soon-Tak. 2018, "A Study on the Development Process of Community Involvement and Policy Implications in the U.K.: Focusing on the Nabatchi’s Modified Spectrum of Participation", The Korea Spatial Planning Review, pp. 63-86.

Lee, S. R. 2007, ‘A Study on the Urban Planning System and Development Control in England’, Gyeonggi Research Institute, p. 3.

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's Guidelines for Establishing District Unit Plans, 2023, Urban Policy Division, viewed 21 May 2024,

<https://www.law.go.kr/admRulInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000226708>

Mok, Jeong Hun and Park, Jong Hyun, 2006. A Study on the Improvement and Conjugation of Resident Agreement for Enhancing Community Participation in District Unit Plan. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea Urban Design, 7(2), pp.109-126.

Nelimarkka, M., Nonnecke, B., Krishnan, S., Aitamurto, A., Huang, A., Newsom, G. and Gregory, C. et al. 2014. Comparing Three Online Civic Engagement Platforms Using the Spectrum of Public Participation Framework. California: UC Berkeley, CITRIS.

Park Dong-min, 2022, "Public law study on district unit planning." PhD thesis Kyung Hee University.

Park, Joo-Sun and Jang, Kyo-Sik, 2020. Measures to Enhance the Effectiveness of the Residents" Listening System When Planning Development. Study on Land & Public Law, 91, pp.41-58.

Seongbuk-gu Office, September 24, 2020, Public Notice, viewed 21 May 2024,

<https://www.sb.go.kr/main/cop/bbs/gosiView.do>

Seongbuk-gu Office, 2020, Online Briefing Session for Residents, viewed 21 May 2024, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwam1TroMQc>

Seongbuk-gu Office, 2022, Seongbuk-dong District Unit Plan Reorganization Report.

Seoul Metropolitan Government's Urban Planning Dictionary, 2020, Naver Knowledge Background, viewed 21 May 2024, <https://terms.naver.com/entry.naver?docId=6408264&cid=42151&categoryId=42151>

Seoul Metropolitan Government's Standards for Managing and Operating District Unit Plans, 2022, Urban Management Division, viewed 21 May 2024,

<https://urban.seoul.go.kr/view/html/PM*********000#view/318366532>

Sherry R. Arnstein, 2019, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), pp. 24–34. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388>

Sherry R. Arnstein, 1969, A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, pp. 216-224.

Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225>

Yang Yoon-Jae, 2002. On the District Unit Planning System. as a Method for Urban Management. Journal of Environmental Studies, 40, pp.75-100.

Yoo Min-bong, 2006, Korean Administration, Park Young-Sa, pp. 118-120.