Privately owned public spaces (POPS) are intended for public use but are owned and maintained by building owners. Many POPS in Seoul fail to offer a welcoming environment due to inadequate maintenance and illegal private use. In this study, we explored whether citizen participation can effectively enhance the management of POPS and reinforce the general public’s determination to reform public spaces. We involved nonprofessional citizens and local architects in simulated inspections and qualitative assessments of Seoul’s POPS. The citizens were able to effectively identify violations in POPS and provide more rigorous qualitative evaluations from a user perspective than experts. Following the inspection, the citizens developed a new sense of responsibility as stakeholders in urban public spaces. These findings reveal that citizen participation could make POPS more public and empower citizens to become active agents in improving public spaces.
AlamRizwanaLovettJon C.. 2019. “Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis.” Sustainability11(12): 3387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123387.
2.
AltmanDouglas G.1990. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
BanerjeeTridib.2001. “The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association67(1): 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976352.
5.
BrovelliMaria AntoniaMinghiniMarcoZamboniGiorgio. 2016. “Public Participation in GIS via mobile Applications.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing114: 306–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.04.002.
ButtonMark.2003. “Private Security and the Policing of Quasi-Public Space.” International Journal of the Sociology of law31(3): 227–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsl.2003.09.001.
8.
CarmonaMatthew.2021. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. New York: Routledge.
9.
CarmonaMatthew.2022. “The “Public-Isation” of Private Space–Towards a Charter of Public Space Rights and Responsibilities.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability15(2): 133–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1887324.
10.
CarmonaMatthewDe MagalhaesClaudioHammondLeo. 2008. Public Space: The Management Dimension. London: Routledge.
ChoiJung-Hee. 2012. “A Study on the Management and Vitalization of Privately-Owned Public Space—Focused on the Cases of Seoul, New York, Tokyo” [In Korean]. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea28(1): 245–52.
13.
City of New York. 2011. “37–78 Compliance.” In Zoning Resolution. New York: City of New York.
14.
CreswellJohn W.CreswellJ. David. 2017. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
DevlinKimberlyNasarJack L.. 1989. “The Beauty and the Beast: Some Preliminary Comparisons of ‘High’ Versus ‘Popular’ Residential Architecture and Public Versus Architect Judgments of Same.” Journal of Environmental Psychology9(4): 333–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80013-1.
16.
FawcettWilliamEllinghamIanPlattStephen. 2008. “Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public: The Ordered Preference Model.” Environment and Behavior40(5): 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507304695.
17.
FleissJoseph LLevinBrucePaikMyunghee Cho. 2003. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
FriedmannJohn. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20.
GehlJan. 1996. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. 3rd ed. Skive: Arkitektens Forlag.
21.
GiffordRobertHineDonald W.Muller-ClemmWernerShawKelly T.. 2002. “Why Architects and Laypersons Judge Buildings Differently: Cognitive Properties and Physical Bases.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research19(2): 131–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030605..
22.
GjerdeMorten.2011. “Visual Evaluation of Urban Streetscapes: How Do Public Preferences Reconcile with Those Held by Experts?” Urban Design International16: 153–61. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2011.10.
HealeyPatsyBooherDavid ETorfingJacobSørensenEvaNgMee KamPetersonPedroAlbrechtsLouis. 2008. “Civic Engagement, Spatial Planning and Democracy as a way of Life Civic Engagement and the Quality of Urban Places Enhancing Effective and Democratic Governance Through Empowered Participation: Some Critical Reflections one Humble Journey Towards Planning for a More Sustainable Hong Kong: A Need to Institutionalise Civic Engagement Civic Engagement and Urban Reform in Brazil Setting the Scene.” Planning Theory & Practice9(3): 379–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350802277092.
26.
HoDaniel CWLaiLawrence WCWangAnqi. 2021. “The Effects of ‘Publicness’ and Quality of Publicly Accessible Open Space upon User Satisfaction.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(4): 861–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320903733.
27.
HouJeffrey.2011. “Citizen Design: Participation and Beyond.” In Companion to Urban Design, 329–40. London: Routledge.
28.
HwangHo-Wan. 2013. “A Shopping Mall That Has Encroached Upon Privately Owned Public Space, While the Gwanak District Office Remains Ignorant: An Institution Catering to the Interests of the Powerful?” [In Korean]. Gwanak FM, May 28. Accessed September 3, 2023. http://www.radiogfm.net/news/8149.
29.
JacobsJane.1984. The Death and Life of Great American Cities: The Failure of Modern Town Planning. London: Peregrine Books.
30.
JianIzzy YiChanEdwin HWXuYangOwusuEmmanuel Kingsford. 2021. “Inclusive Public Open Space for all: Spatial Justice with Health Considerations.” Habitat International118: 102457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102457.
31.
KaydenJerold S. and New York City Department of Planning, and Municipal Art Society of New York. 2000. Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
32.
KaydenJerold S.2005. “Using and Misusing Law to Design the Public Realm.” In Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America, edited by Ben-JosephEranSzoldTerry S., 115–40. New York: Routledge.
33.
KimDoyeonChoiYoon Kyung. 2018. “A Study for Ameliorating Design Guidelines to Vitalize Privately Owned Public Space (POPS)” [In Korean]. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea34(3): 105–16.
34.
KimYoungjiOhSunghoonHerJaeseok. 2020. Institution Improvement for Sustainable Privately-Owned Public Spaces [in Korean]. Architecture & Urban Research Institute, Report No. 2020-11.
35.
KohnMargaret.2004. Brave new Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. New York: Routledge.
36.
LandisJ. RichardKochGary G.. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics33(1): 159–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
37.
LeclercqElsPojaniDorina. 2023. “Public Space Privatisation: Are Users Concerned?” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability16(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1933572.
38.
LeeDayeChoiJung-YoonKimJung-EunSeoHyung-Joo. 2022. Introducing and Operating Community Boards to Ensure Citizen Participation in Urban Planning [In Korean]. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Report No. 2021-17.
39.
LeeSang MinKimYoung Hyun. 2012. The Improvement of the System for Privately Owned Public Space to Elevate the Quality of Urban Public Spaces [In Korean]. Architecture & Urban Research Institute, Report No. 2012-6.
40.
LeeDahaeScholtenNele. 2024. “Co-production of Privately Owned Public Space: Who, why, When, and how?” URBAN DESIGN International, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-024-00239-2.
MitlinDiana.2021. “Editorial: Citizen Participation in Planning: From the Neighbourhood to the City.” Environment and Urbanization33(2): 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478211035608.
NémethJeremySchmidtStephen. 2011. “The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and Measuring Publicness.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38(1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057.
46.
OhmerMary L.2007. “Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations and its Relationship to Volunteers’ Self-and Collective Efficacy and Sense of Community.” Social Work Research31(2): 109–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/31.2.109.
47.
PancerS Mark. 2014. The Psychology of Citizenship and Civic Engagement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
ParkHyun-chanYangEun-jung. 2017. Improvement of the Privately Owned Public Space in District Planning Area [in Korean]. The Seoul Institute, Report No. 2016-PR-55.
49.
RiosMichael.2008. “Envisioning Citizenship: Toward a Polity Approach in Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design13(2): 213–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800801965692.
50.
RossiniFrancescoYiuMelody Hoi-lam. 2021. “Public Open Spaces in Private Developments in Hong Kong: New Spaces for Social Activities?” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability14(2): 237–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2020.1793803.
51.
SmithsimonGregory.2008. “Dispersing the Crowd: Bonus Plazas and the Creation of Public Space.” Urban Affairs Review43(3): 325–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087407306325.
WhyteWilliam H.1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
57.
WhyteWilliam H.1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday.
58.
XieQingshu.2013. “Agree or Disagree? A Demonstration of an Alternative Statistic to Cohen’s Kappa for Measuring the Extent and Reliability of Agreement Between Observers.” In Proceedings of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference: 1–12.
59.
YooJae-HoKimJung-Bin. 2023. “A Study on the Comparison and Analysis of Operating Systems in Privately Owned Public Space—With Seoul and New York as the Center” [In Korean]. Paper presented at the 2023 Spring Conference of the Urban Design Institute of Korea (UDIK), 1129–38.
60.
YoonHeeyeunSrinivasanSumeeta. 2015. “Are They Well Situated? Spatial Analysis of Privately Owned Public Space, Manhattan, New York City.” Urban Affairs Review51(3): 358–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414552457.
