Abstract
In 2018, the South Korean government began promoting a “livelihood-improving” social overhead capital policy based on the concepts of an inclusive city, smart shrinkage, and the balanced development of metropolitan and provincial cities. Based on a review of the extant literature and relevant policies from South Korea, this study explores this policy’s implementation and makes some suggestions for its sustainability. This study compares the current state of South Korea’s urban facilities’ and the balance of their supply between metropolitan and provincial cities. To discern which type of facility central and local governments should prioritize, this study conducts a stepwise regression analysis and identifies which preexisting facilities influence the facility type proposed by the current policy. Results show that South Korea’s living infrastructure is well distributed among metropolitan and provincial cities. However, urban planning shows little consideration for minimizing the distance between facilities and residential zones. In terms of facility types, the supply of education and local community facilities was adequate throughout the country, while culture and art facilities were inadequate. In metropolitan cities, the supply of sports and leisure facilities was insufficient.
Highlights
First presented by the United Nations as a theme of its Global Campaign on Urban Governance in 1999 [1], the concept of city inclusion comprises three dimensions: social, economic, and spatial
To overcome the limitation in the extant research and relevant policies, this study examines the current condition of the living infrastructure established in South Korea before 2018, when the Living SOC was introduced, from the perspective of urban planning and land use
Through t-tests, this study examines the difference between the two types of cities to identify the significant differences in the major variables reflecting regional attributes, such as population, average age of residents, urbanization ratio, the level of Living SOC, and the area ratio of residential, commercial, industrial, and green zones in South Korean urban planning-Table 2 details the results of the analysis
Summary
First presented by the United Nations as a theme of its Global Campaign on Urban Governance in 1999 [1], the concept of city inclusion comprises three dimensions: social, economic, and spatial. Spatial inclusion refers to equal accessibility to living infrastructure and public services [2], mainly because people with limited access to living infrastructure and public services experience social exclusion from various social opportunities [3]. The global community has sought sustainable, inclusive growth by ensuring universal access to living infrastructure and public services [4]. In addition to the concept of inclusive growth, there is a growing emphasis on nonphysical infrastructure (or soft infrastructure) beyond the conventional concept of living infrastructure and public services [5]. From the late twentieth century, European and North American scholars have defined parks, green areas, and community sports facilities as social infrastructure and have actively participated in policymaking and research related to social infrastructure [6,7,8,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
