Effectiveness of Public Partnerships in Non-Urban Regeneration Projects in Korea: Seeing through Place-Keeping Theory

Abstract

This study conducted a holistic analysis of selected public-led regeneration projects carried out in different ways in rural and fishing villages in Korea, in line with current trends based on place-keeping theory, which reflects the long-term perspective of the project as a frame. This study identified the mechanisms and characteristics revealed in the planning process of the cases. Through an analysis of the discourse of the governing bodies, it also examined their perceptions and issues regarding the projects, finding that the different objectives of the projects and differences in the members leading the governance had different effects on the planning of the regeneration project. In this process, this study found distorted place-keeping elements: (1) The final design tends to be uniform rather than reflecting regional specificity. (2) As the investment in profit-making facilities was limited to one’s own expense, funding was limited. (3) Asymmetry of partnership occurred due to the local community’s insecurity following the adjustment of the plan. (4) In order to maintain a long-term governance system, a group of regionally friendly and responsible professionals was required.

1. Introduction

Since the great wars of the 20th century, the methods of development or maintenance of declining cities and non-cities have developed in various forms. As research on public–private partnerships expanded after the mid-1980s, the term and concept of “regeneration” in development policy began to receive worldwide attention [1,2,3]. In addition, as regeneration projects were applied to post-war urban development areas, brownfield areas, relocation sites for military facilities, housing projects, and declining areas, it was emphasized that they should be planned with the active participation of the community [4,5]. However, local- or private-oriented regeneration projects, which were carried out in resistance to existing development methods, faced various criticisms. First, the regeneration of the region was turned into a resource and was divided into regions with and without special support, acting as a factor in gentrification [6,7]. For a regeneration project, only the physical dimension or only the economic function was emphasized. Cooperation and consensus were lost as a single perspective was pursued [8,9]. As the concept of partnership in regeneration projects is vague and politicized, it can be used arbitrarily according to the intention of the implementing entity [10,11,12,13,14,15]. Lastly, as regeneration projects were focused on real estate development, the processes and procedures were undemocratic. Public funds for development projects ran by private developers were wasted, while the benefits of regeneration projects did not reach the socially underprivileged in the respective regions [16].

In order to minimize public distortion of regeneration projects and establish policy in the public sector, a number of countries have enacted laws and regulations regarding the management of public finances, dedicated organizations, and support for the private sector for implementation as national policy. For example, France enacted “loi Borloo (Loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la ville et la renovation urbaine)” in 2003 and set project periods and specific volume targets. It revitalized regeneration projects by establishing a strong promotion agency (Agence national de renovation urbaine, ANRU) and by raising funds (Programme national de renovation urbaine, PNRU) [17,18]. In order to promote regeneration projects with their own finances, Poland, which ran the Local Regeneration Program (LRP) with EU funds, enacted “the Act on Public-Private Partnership” and “the Regeneration Act” in 2005 and 2015, respectively, which introduced standards of efficiency and universal characteristics of regeneration projects and implemented an integration and coordination mechanism such that declining areas could come out of a crisis [19]. The United Kingdom (UK) has developed policies such as the City Challenge (1991) and Single Regeneration Budget (1994) since the 1990s, and local governments have played an important role in the decision-making processes of regeneration projects. In addition, local government could be said to be a facilitator for forming partnerships with local communities, private developers, the public sector, and the volunteer sector [20]. These countries are intervening in planning processes to promote the symbolism of “public regeneration”, to induce a role as a public entity with the goal of long-term socio-economic regeneration, and to differentiate the development method. At the same time, important aspects of cooperation and consultation have been formed in the planning processes of these projects [8,21], and various systems and new approaches are called for.

As a latecomer to regeneration projects, Korea is in principle led by the public through case studies of preceding countries [22]. Korea enacted the Special Act on Promotion of Additionally, Support for Urban Regeneration only in 2013, and central and local governments established various types of regeneration projects in urban spaces in the form of policy. Since 2015, legislation has been revised to implement strong public-led regeneration projects in non-urban areas such as rural areas and fishing villages. Due to the nature of rural areas, they are formed around farmland, which is private property, and where crops are produced. Fishing villages use public goods such as fishing ports and fishing grounds as a base for living via the fishery industry. Accordingly, governance in rural areas affects the activities of individuals according to the farmland, and governance of fishing villages affects the activities of communities, fishing grounds, and fishing ports [23]. Because of the different characteristics of rural and fishing villages, different central government agencies have had jurisdiction over them, and they have been subject to different, relevant laws. Public-led regeneration project methods suitable for the characteristics of each type of region have been adopted.

There are many theoretical or analytical frameworks that can help us understand publicness and the role of the public sector in regeneration projects, but among them, place-keeping (PK) theory is very useful. PK has a concept similar to regeneration projects, and it was used by Dempsey and his colleagues to professionally analyze public spaces such as rivers, parks, and plazas [24,25,26,27,28,29]. (1) Regeneration and PK are central to urban and regional planning and design. Both pay attention to the post-operation and management areas, moving beyond the realm of place-making, which has the perspective of creation and formation. For this reason, the framework of PK has the advantage of being able to consider regeneration projects from long-term perspectives [30]. (2) Regeneration and PK promote project entities by governance, from planning to operation, finance, and private capital in an integrated and holistic manner [24,31]. (3) Centering on the UK, the main target of policy in their regeneration projects is emphasizing public space. That is, regarding regeneration and PK, public spaces are considered for local regeneration so that a large number of people can use them in a well-managed environment [32,33]. In particular, in relation to item (3), a regeneration project promoted by the government should pay attention to its function and role as a public good in such domains as roads, plazas, and parks. Furthermore, this requires different land management skills, different stakeholders, and different levels of available resources to manage the site. It is in one respect the same as the concept of public space management, which is “a set of processes and practices that manage the interactions and impacts of multiple functions acceptable to users while ensuring that the subject of the regeneration project can perform all legitimate roles” [34]. A normative concept is needed that specifies how the quality and benefits brought through the process of regenerative areas can be shared, enhanced, and maintained. In addition, regeneration projects should be supported by design and planning guidelines that policy makers and practitioners are to consider after project implementation [24,35]. That is, PK theory will be a very useful tool for the holistic analysis of regeneration projects [33,36].

In this context, this study analyzes the planning process of regeneration projects that are being promoted in different ways in Korea’s non-urban areas (that is, rural and fishing villages) according to the PK framework. Through this, it will be possible to explore the long-term regeneration strategy of public-led regeneration projects. Accordingly, this study proceeds as a field-based case study for the following specific objectives. First, it confirms the mechanism and characteristics of public-led regeneration projects. Second, it clarifies the perceptions of stakeholders that can be found in the internal discourse of public-led regeneration projects. Third, this study reveals the effect of the planning process by comparing the formal or strategic differences in the PK of public-led regeneration projects. Ultimately, this study provides the theoretical foundation necessary for the institutional or policy establishment of a public management system for non-urban regeneration projects in the expectation that this will serve as a reference for connecting with public administration.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Justification for Public Intervention in Regeneration Projects

Essentially, regeneration projects can be formally divided into private and public initiatives, based on the premises of publicness. However, the reality is that even if a private initiative is promoted according to the economic logic of the market or as an autonomous project of the resident community, the project has no choice but to be implemented under the support of the public sector [37,38]. Looking at the history of regeneration projects, the initiative for such projects has shifted from the region to the state, and opportunities for participation have been given to stakeholders [39]. Regeneration projects have undergone a historical process involving stages such as as reconstruction based on a masterplan in the 1950s, growth-oriented revitalization targeting suburbs and suburban areas in the 1960s, regional renewal suitable for regional characteristics according to neighborhood-centered development in the 1970s, and the revival of redevelopment in the 1980s. They developed through an integrated and comprehensive historical process in the 1990s [31]. In this process, even if the basic framework is that the regeneration project is promoted according to the economic logic of the market or the private initiative promoted as an autonomous project of the resident community, there is no choice but to implement such a project through the support of the public sector [37,38].

At the same time, the representative logic that the public should intervene in the regeneration project is summed up in the phrases “Securing the public interest” and “The role of the public”. First, in terms of the former, regeneration projects aim to revitalize the region and promote public welfare through improvement of the physical environment and enhancement of its economic, social, cultural, and artistic vitality. Next, the latter is to suggest the direction of the regeneration project and, in policy form, to lead it. This is approached from the perspective of coordinating and managing the project as a whole rather than the existing strong leadership. It establishes guidelines rather than development projects and provides a support system. In addition, its direction is governed by “urban regime theory”, which describes the governance of urban and regional policies since 1980.

2.1.1. Securing the Publicness of Regeneration Projects

The Major government in the UK established the concept of social regeneration as a goal to change the direction from “land and real estate” to “people and communities” [40]. Since then, regeneration projects have developed into process-oriented projects that have overcome the limitations of the pre-existing project method that followed a result-oriented, vertical decision-making structure and the logic of profit of capital. At the same time, in order to secure the publicness of the regeneration project, the role of public institutions entrusted by the state is recognized as important, and the “role and empowerment” of public actors becomes the focus of discussion. First, in order for the regeneration project to have publicness, there needs to be public nature at the procedural level for decision-making based on the understanding and participation of stakeholders. Second, the public nature of the content needs to be considered in terms of related policies, systems, and regional characteristics in order for the regeneration project to pursue universal values. Lastly, publicness at the subjective level is required to institutionalize the authority and roles and to reconcile public and private interests and conflicts [41,42].

2.1.2. Regeneration Projects According to Urban Regime Theory

The second point at which the public should intervene in regeneration projects is that of forming the framework of governance as the subject of project participation. The close relationship between public-led regeneration projects and urban regime theory explains the partnership between the private sector and the realm surrounding regional policy decisions [1,2,15,43,44]. This helps us understand the shaping of regional governance in the context of broader political and economic restructuring processes [45,46,47] and has contributed to expanding the private sector beyond the public sector as a target for decision-making [48].

Stone (1993) and Stoker and Mossberger (1994) explained the reason why governance is required for city and regional decisions and the types of urban regimes in the following manner. First, urban regime theory started with the premise that power resources affecting urban and regional policies should be distributed among various groups, both public and private [49,50]. Furthermore, it regards the achievement of effective policy goals through the formation of a coalition by the public sector with institutional resources and the private sector with economic resources as important. This development was divided by Stoker and Mossberger (1994) into three types according to the formation and purpose of the regime, the motivation for participation, the basis for a shared sense of objective, the level of consensus among stakeholders, and the mood of the relationship with the political environment for the purpose of applying it to a transnational context. The first involves maintaining the current state without any change and maintaining the traditional lifestyle with strong social cohesion. The second involves forming a coalition for the purpose of realizing a specific project, and forming a partnership as an economic incentive through this project. Third, contrary to the first, involves changing the image and identity of the region itself, which directly affects the lives of local residents, and thus entails conflicts [15,50,51,52,53,54,55].

2.2. Place-Keeping (PK) as an Analysis Frame

Carmona et al. [56] defined regulation as a process that mediates and controls conflicts between users, maintenance as a daily activity of ensuring the physical integrity of public spaces, funding as the key to the sustainability of public space, and regulation, in which reciprocity and intervention in the various fields of roles are key, as the key elements that operate the public space management system. However, researchers proposing to apply the concept of PK to the sustainability of public space have urged a fundamental change of attitude from the planning stage, moving beyond a managerial approach towards the place. This concept followed the theory “Policy Arrangement Approach” of Art and Leory [57]. It stems from the argument that public space problems can be solved if opportunities to raise funds are provided and stakeholders are engaged in the form of governance or partnership.

According to the PK concept, when comprehensive and diverse elements and actors in place management are combined and converted to a higher-quality place, it can be maintained and strengthened as a place that shares interests with the community. Further, the planning process, which is carried out based on efficiency in the existing public administration, should be long-term and integrated, and include temporality. Accordingly, Dempsey and Smith [58,59] defined PK as follows: “Even after a high-quality place is created, it should be a space that guarantees social, environmental and economic quality and benefits such that the next generation can fully enjoy it. For this, there is a need to conduct operation management from a long-term perspective”. That is, continuous access to the site and a strategy of long-term and responsible operation management are needed. At the same time, the core of the discussion about PK is in the process.

The PK concept explains the relationship between the quality improvement of space and the healthy growth of local communities through recent public space operation and management cases. Strengthening partnerships in governance that encompasses private companies, communities, and public administration becomes the basis for creating a vibrant space, increasing value, and shaping the interests of local communities. The approach from the PK perspective takes place through comprehensive and long-term planning of space, composition, and operation management. It makes it clear that it is a prerequisite for sustainable, positive socio-economic impact. Moreover, this perspective calls for a more multi-layered expansion of the public-led three-step method—(1) policy establishment, (2) fund input and creation of a space, and (3) maintenance through management—that has been promoted in existing place-making research. Accordingly, Dempsey and Burton [60] believed that a more specific framework can be provided by minutely categorizing the key elements for public space management into policy, governance, partnership, funding, design and maintenance, and evaluation. Details are as follows (

Table 1. The place-keeping framework.

PK Elements	Content
policy	- Set the direction, subject, funding support, and scope of funding for space operation - Establish a legally effective system only when policy or system is supported - A device that can unify the implementation of national policies and detailed plans of local governments
governance	- Formation of relationships among stakeholders who have taken over responsibility from the state - User-centric model-based (local community group, charitable organization, non-governmental/public organization) - Considers effective and best decision-making structure - Multiple expansion through the combination of three-dimensional and multi-layered network structures is the key - The role of a concrete implementing organization is required for effective practice in the field
partnership	- A mechanism for effectively distributing the responsibilities of public space management among different stakeholders - Share responsibility by collaborating and connecting with two or more partners - Decision-making model needed to keep the relationships in governance tight - Build partnerships that can overcome changes in funding and political contexts to maintain continuity
funding	- The most important criterion for place-keeping - The expansion of private funds ensures the possibility of long-term operational management since public funds are limited to public services
design and maintenance	- Consider post-processing in the planning process for long-term operation management - Consider economic efficiency and efficiency from the function of space and facility function to the use of materials - Planning for changing uses and needs
evaluation	- Setting indicators (attitude, satisfaction, actual provision of services and facilities, community participation criteria) is important - Investigation of public space use, skill development of managers, process

).

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Study Site

In order to conduct this study, six target sites were selected from among public-led regeneration projects promoted in rural and fishing villages, which are non-urban areas in Korea. As the target areas for the regeneration projects in rural areas, Hwayang-eup, Cheongdo-gun (R-1), Heunghae-eup, Pohang-si (R-2), and Jeungpyeong-eup, Jeungpyeong-gun (R-3), promoted as RHRPs (Rural Hub Revitalization Projects), were selected. As the target areas for the regeneration project in the fishing villages, Sinchang 2-ri, Pohang-si (F-1), Jukpo Port, Yeosu-si (F-2), and Dokjeon Port, Yeosu-si (F-3), promoted as FVNDs (Fishing Village New Deal 300 Projects), were selected. The target sites were selected from the project areas promoted after 2019, which were carried out in a stable stage, rather than sites where projects were conducted in the early days of confusion. The location and outline of the sites are summarized in Figure 1 and

Table 2. Overview of the study sites.

Rural Hub Revitalization Project (RHRP)
	R-1 (Hwayang-eup, Cheongdo-gun)	R-2 (Heunghae-eup, Pohang-si)	R-3 (Jeungpyeong-eup, Jeungpyeong-gun)
[a]
[b]	7899	40,222	32,648
[c]	43.15	105.3	81.81
[d]	Development restricted due to the existence of cultural assets in the jurisdiction	Restoration in progress due to earthquake damage in 2017	Smallest administrative division in Korea
[e]	2017–2020	2019–2023	2018–2011
[f]	8000	15,000	8000
Fishing Village New Deal 300 Project (FVND)
	F-1 (Sinchang 2-ri, Pohang-si)	F-2 (Jukpo Port, Yeosu-si)	F-3 (Dokjeon Port, Yeosu-si)
[a]
[b]	98	162	330
[c]	106,000	362,000	630,000
[d]	Spotlight in the field of fishing village experience	Development of surrounding tourism project since 2012	Adjacent to Dadohae Marine National Park Area
[e]	2019–2021	2019–2021	2020–2022
[f]	12,865	8931	9574

[a]: View of target site, [b]: Population (number of people), [c]: Project area (km²), [d]: Characteristic of target site, [e]: Project year, [f]: Project cost (1 million KRW).

.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The method of this study is based on the six points of PK. The characteristics of the public-led regeneration projects in non-urban cities in Korea were drawn and the discourse of stakeholders was analyzed along two axes. The first axis was examined through qualitative analysis based on the relevant literature. Regarding the related materials, relevant laws and policy materials were provided by the Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. The masterplan report, operation plan, construction statement, public document, and resident autonomy regulation (draft) for the six target sites were provided by Korea Rural Community Corporation, which delegates management of regeneration projects related to farming and fishing villages, and the service provider who planned and designed the project. Further, the contents disclosed in

Table 3. Data list and extraction contents by PK framework.

PK Framework	Collected Materials Used	Content Extracted from the Materials
Policy	Related laws	Basic system and procedure of the project
Governance and partnership	Related laws and operating plans	Decision-making structure and mechanism for stakeholders
Funding	Construction statement	Project investment plan and profit plan after project completion
Design and Maintenance	Basic plan report, resident autonomy regulations (draft)	Project contents (facility planning, management and operation plan)
Evaluation	Basic plan report, resident autonomy regulations (draft)	Monitoring content

were extracted from the related data.

In the second axis, text mining was used to analyze the discourses of stakeholders. Text mining refers to natural language processing technology from unstructured/semi-structured text data [61]. It extracts new and useful patterns, knowledge, and information through the analysis process [62]. The advantage of text mining is that it can discover what the actual and potential core discussions and expressions are within the text [63,64,65]. To apply this method, this study obtained the minutes of the planning process.

As for the specific method of discourse analysis in this study, the data were refined using R, which is open source. Afterwards, sentiment analysis and degree centrality analysis were conducted (Figure 2). First, to refine the data, the Tidyverse package was used. In the second step, Korean Natural Language Processing (KoNLP), which is a Korean natural language analysis package, was used after deleting unnecessary spaces and special symbols in the sentence. In the third step, the data were processed in a way that extracts nouns from sentences using the nine-parts-of-speech processing function (SimplePos09). In the last step, sentiment analysis and degree centrality analysis were carried out for the extracted nouns.

For sentiment analysis, the “KNU Korean Sentiment Dictionary” developed by Kunsan University was used. “KNU Korean Sentiment Dictionary” extracts positive, negative, and neutral words through analysis of the meaning of the standard Korean dictionary of the National Institute of the Korean Language, and gives scores including Very positive (2), Positive (1), Neutral (0), Negative (−1), and Very negative (−2) for each word. In this study, the sentiment score of the sentence was calculated by adding the value given to the word in the sentiment dictionary. Sentiment analysis differentiated fishing villages from rural areas and compared the sentiments of public officials, experts, and residents. In addition, sentiments were tracked by day based on the first meeting. The results of sentiment analysis were visualized using the “ggplot2” package.

The degree centrality analysis derived the connectivity between words included in each sentence using the igraph package. As an example of a matrix showing the connectivity between words, “project”–”thought” (1) has a weaker relationship than “village”–”thought” (5). Based on the derived word network, the semantic network graph was visualized using tidygraph and ggraph. In the semantic network graph, the line shows the connection between words, and the size of the figure shows high or low degrees of connection. After text mining analysis, whether the sentences spoken at the meetings contained PK was verified. The result of sentiment analysis was re-visualized for the inclusion of the concept for each sentence. Through this, the sentiment scores of comments including PK were calculated and the different types of regeneration projects carried out in rural and fishing villages were compared. Through this quantitative analysis process, this study examines the interest and awareness of stakeholders in the public-led regeneration projects carried out in non-urban cities in light of the PK analysis items.

4. Results

4.1. Formation Process and Characteristics of Non-Urban Public-Led Regeneration Projects from a Place-Keeping Perspective

4.1.1. Policy

Korean regeneration projects started from a small urban-space unit through the enactment of urban-regeneration-related laws [66,67]. On the other hand, regeneration projects in non-urban areas opened up possibilities by amending the existing Special Act on Balanced National Development. Regulations on the regeneration projects of rural and fishing villages were embodied through reorganization of subordinate individual laws.

First, based on the Framework Act on Agriculture, Rural Community, and Food Industry, the rural regeneration project aims for (1) the introduction of the Block Grant System, (2) consideration of the equality of policy benefits by reflecting the characteristics of widely distributed rural villages, and (3) fostering of rural development bases and establishment of a service delivery system to villages lagging behind [68,69]. Next, based on the provisions of the Regeneration of Fishing and Fishery Harbors newly established in the Fishing Village and Fishery Harbors Act of 2019, the policy goals of the fishing village regeneration projects are (1) to expand social overhead capital closely related to life through integrated development of fishing ports and fishing villages, and (2) to improve the value of use and revitalize the local economy by utilizing unused facilities and sites in fishing ports and fishing villages [70,71].

In accordance with related laws, individual projects are operated under the name of RHRP (Rural Hub Revitalization Project) in rural areas and FVND (Fishing Village New Deal 300 Project) in fishing villages. Moreover, the process of each project is led by the state and is based on a bottom-up principle. First, regional governance prepares a preliminary plan and participates in public offering of national institution. After winning the competition, they prepare a masterplan, and in the process, they are reviewed by an advisory group affiliated with the central government. When RHRP meets the review requirements for public building projects and the Central Planning Support Group, it is automatically approved by MAFRA (Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs). FVND is a structure in which approval and rejection are decided by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) based on the content review of the advisory group [70,72].

Thus, non-urban regeneration projects in Korea started with the common goal of balanced national development, and they are all formalizing interventions of the central government. On the other hand, there are differences in details regarding the policy directions. First of all, the policy of the rural regeneration project is designed to provide basic living services for local residents by performing a decision function, a central function, and a base function in the system of rural settlement, and for win–win development through linkage with the villages lagging behind. Further, the policy of fishing village regeneration projects is focused on improving fishing port infrastructure and promoting fishing village tourism, thereby enhancing the quality of life of fishing village residents and creating jobs through revitalization of the fishing village economy.

4.1.2. Governance and Partnership

The governance of non-urban regeneration projects in Korea follows standardized norms. The project involves the participation of local residents, experts, and public officials, who share roles and responsibilities. First, public officials acting on behalf of the government build a cooperative structure that continuously supports and encourages community participation from a long-term perspective. Experts who act as mediators between the government and residents lead the project from the initial investigation stage and devise a detailed plan and its implementation. Local residents plan or independently operate a project that fits the local situation, while flexibly reconstructing it as the project takes place [73].

On the other hand, the mechanisms for governance and partnership between rural and fishing village regeneration projects are somewhat different (Figure 3). First, RHRP operates mainly in the Field Forum, in which experts stand at the center of interest and promote a practical overall plan for a project required for the building of the region, architecture, design, landscaping, tourism, cultural properties, and capability. Local residents present their opinions in the Field Forum by forming a separate Project Promotion Group. On the other hand, in FVND, decisions are made through a Regional Consultative Body jointly operated by local government and local residents, and experts play an advisory role. Through this system, the process and structure of the regeneration projects of rural and fishing villages are improved, thereby enhancing their effectiveness. Further, they is conducted in a way that motivates members to achieve their vision and goals [74].

Comparison of the forms of governance in the two regions above shows RHRP to be a structure in which an expert group leads the project and plays a role as a continuous management entity to enhance cooperation with external actors and mediation activities. Conversely, FVND is a structure in which local government and local residents lead the promotion and management of the project, while lowering the degree of expert intervention.

4.1.3. Design and Maintenance

As is widely known, regeneration projects include not only hardware aspects such as neighborhood strategy, physical environment improvement, and eco-friendly function improvement, but also software aspects such as education, vocational training, and economic development [75]. The design and management of non-urban regeneration projects are also divided into a hardware project (H/W) that establishes and maintains a physical environment, and a software project (S/W) that provides local residents with the ability to operate and manage the facility even after the project is completed. These are implemented in a way such that they integrate each with the other.

In terms of detailed design and management, RHRP is divided into “expansion of the basic living base” that reorganizes and improves the living environment of residents, “improvement of local landscape” that utilizes village landscape resources, and “reinforcement of regional capacity” corresponding to the S/W. FVND is divided into the “common project” that improves local fishing port facilities, the “specialized project” that improves the settlement environment and revitalize the local economy, and the S/W. Both RHRP and FVND include education for local residents, public relations and marketing, event programs, and consulting in S/W.

The bottom-up design process starts with a preliminary plan and is completed with deliberation of local governance and advice and deliberation from the central government. The RHRP Field Forum deliberates on facilities and design using a facilitation technique [76,77]. The main facilities decided upon tend to focus on building a community center and cultural center and improving the street environment, while park creation, reflected in the preliminary plan, tends to be excluded from the final result (

Table 4. Changes in facilities and budget determined in the RHRP.

Category	Expansion of Basic Living Base (H/W)				Improvement of Local Landscape (H/W)				Reinforcement of Regional Capabilities (S/W)
	Preliminary Plan		Final Plan		Preliminary Plan		Final Plan		Preliminary Plan	Final Plan
	[A]	[B]	[C]	[D]	[A]	[B]	[C]	[D]	[B]	[D]
R-1	Community center	3759 (43%)	○	4188 (52%)	Ecological park	2691 (31%)	×	1880 (24%)	2297 (26%)	710 (9%)
	Square		×		Shelter		○
	Restoration of old roads		×		Sculpture		×
	Bus stop		○		Ecological forest		×
					Tourism information system		×
							(New) Road improvement
R-2	Community center	11,230 (75%)	○	10,853 (72%)	Road improvement	790 (5%)	○	371 (2%)	2520 (17%)	1979 (13%)
	Safety theme park		×
	Village network		○
	Safe route		×
R-3	Cultural center	5936 (74%)	○	5869 (73%)	Road improvement	174 (2%)	×	0 (0%)	1096 (14%)	1170 (15%)
	Cultural street		×
	Safe route		×

[A]: Sub-project facility, [B]: project cost of preliminary plan (1 million KRW), [C]: Whether the final project is reflected, [D]: Final project cost (1 million KRW). Source: The above data are the contents of the “Preliminary Plan”, “Masterplan Report”, and “Project Investment Plan” of the case sites as reorganized by the author.

). The main facilities decided upon in the FVND focus on the maintenance of the fishing port and construction that would be used and operated by the local community. On the other hand, in the common project, facilities installed other than for the maintenance of fishing ports were not reflected in the final plan, and in the specialized project, various profit projects aiming to revitalizing the local economy were not reflected in the final plan (

Table 5. Changes in facilities and budget determined in FVND.

Category	Common Project (H/W)				Specialized Project (H/W)				S/W Project
	Preliminary Plan		Final Plan		Preliminary Plan		Final Plan		Preliminary Plan	Final Plan
	[A]	[B]	[C]	[D]	[A]	[B]	[C]	[D]	[B]	[D]
F-1	Fishing port maintenance	5568 (43%)	○	5852 (45%)	Distribution center, community center	6201 (48%)	○	4652 (36%)	76 (0.6%)	637 (5%)
					coastal walk, seawater pool		○
					seaside park, observatory		×
							(New) Village landscape improvement
F-2	Bridge	5600 (63%)	×	2790 (31%)	Crime prevention facility	3895 (44%)	○	4543 (51%)	200 (0.2%)	419 (5%)
					Street maintenance		○
					Community center, maintenance of the		○
					tidal flat experience center
					Restaurant, car theater		×
					House repair, vacant house demolition		×
			(New) Fishing port maintenance				(New) Dulle-gil (promenade)
F-3	Dock	4764 (50%)	×	5431 (59%)	Public bath, marine fishing ground	2971 (31%)	○	1953 (21%)	300 (3%)	340 (4%)
	demolition				Seafood market		×
	Seafood		×		Coastal trail, reed trail		×
	workshop
			(New) Fishing port maintenance				(New) Improvement of residential environment

[A]: Sub-project facility, [B]: project cost of preliminary plan (1 million KRW), [C]: Whether the final project is reflected, [D]: Final project cost (1 million KRW). Source: The above data are the contents of the “Preliminary Plan”, “Masterplan Report”, and “Project Investment Plan” of the case sites as reorganized by the author.

).

Regarding the common operating method of RHRP and FVND, the overall management and supervision of facilities is carried out by local government, and general facility management and program operation are centered on the operation committee led by residents. The management responsibility for facility operation is borne by the operator, and maintenance costs are focused on maintaining the function of facilities at the lowest cost to the local government. For the sustainable management and operation of the project, in addition to the S/W project targeting local residents, the resident autonomy agreement is established after the project is completed and the governance organization is maintained (Figure 3). In particular, in the project of the R-1 region, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed with the university to which the region and project participating experts belong, and the cooperative system was expanded in addition to operating support. Meanwhile, FVND allows residents to conserve, manage, and form the village landscape on their own through a “Landscape Agreement” in addition to the above management method.

A major difference occurs between the preliminary plan and the final plan (masterplan) within the design of the above rural and fishing village regeneration projects. This phenomenon can be seen as a strong influence of the central government’s intervention in the regional regeneration plan. At the same time, various ideas conceived in the region tend to focus on specific items such as public buildings and fishing port maintenance. Maintenance has a dual structure between local government and local residents, and the governance that participate in the planning process extends to post-operation and management.

4.1.4. Funding

The cases in this study were carried out in principle with public investment, with 70% of the funding from the national treasury and 30% from local funds. As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, significant amounts of money were devoted to improving the physical environment. In RHRP, more than 50–70% was invested in buildings for local community space, and in FVND, more than 31–59% was invested in maintenance of the fishing port. In order to improve the local landscape, RHRP invested only 0–2%, but FVND invested at relatively high levels of 21–51%. The cost invested in S/W to strengthen the capacity of local residents was more than double in RCRP (9–15%) than in FVND (4–5%). Among these, the S/W cost of FVND, where regional governance is led, was almost ignored in the preliminary project, but increased during the project planning process.

In both projects, residents could directly invest 20% of the facility cost to increase local income (

Table 6. Revenue generation and cost of self-payment for RHRP and FVND.

Category	Income Project Investment Cost	Self-Payment	H/W	S/W
R-1	158 (1.9%)	0		Cafe operation, shopping mall revitalization, education, event operation
R-2	120 (0.8%)	0		Urban–rural exchange program
R-3	130 (1.6%)	0		YouTube creator operation
F-1	1399 (10.8%)	228	Creation of distribution center	Strengthening regional capabilities
F-2	661 (7.4%)	22	Restoration of the tidal flat experience center	Village revitalization plan
F-3	231 (2.5%)	35		Seafood revitalization plan

Unit: 1 million KRW. Source: The above data are the contents of the “project investment plan” of each site as reorganized by the author.

). In RHRP, 0.8–1.9% was passively invested in profit facilities, and most focused on resident education necessary for village management. Meanwhile, in FVND, local residents’ self-payments were up to 2.5 to 10.8% for the installation of income facilities.

Accordingly, the cost of public-led regeneration projects implemented in rural and fishing villages is supported by the public. Further, regarding post-revenue generation, indirect support methods to strengthen the capability of local residents and their own investment are used simultaneously. However, in this case, the installation of profit facilities was very passive.

4.1.5. Evaluation

RHRP and FVND reduce the trial and error of the project and mandate monitoring for mid- to long-term evaluation and analysis. Monitoring is carried out by the PM group and Regional Consultative Body, which serve as the main bodies leading the project. In addition, monitoring is carried out in the planning, detailed planning, and “stage of implementation” and “post-implementation” stages. However, indicators for project evaluation have not been established.

4.2. Discourse Analysis of the Non-Urban Public-Led Regeneration Project Planning Process

4.2.1. Macro-Discourse

Sentiment analysis was conducted by referring to the minutes recorded during the planning process. In order to calculate the sentiment score for the comments of the governing bodies, the comments were divided into those of experts, public officers, and residents, who are the members of governance. Sentiment scores were given to the participants’ comments, and relative sentiment comparison was carried out by calculating the average score (Figure 4a). Although the average value of the sentiment score was positive (+), it does not mean that all comments were positive. However, it did have a positive (+) value because positive comments were more dominant than the negative comments.

Sentiment analysis yielded positive overall sentiment scores, and when the participants were considered, they all had more positive comments in RHRP than in FVND. As for the similarity between FVND and RHRP, the sentiment score decreased in the order of experts, public officers, and then residents. As a characteristic of both FVND and RHRP, experts made the most positive comments, and residents spoke more negatively about the project than experts and public officers. The experts spoke about the project’s progress plan and the effect of the project. Residents expressed concerns about project feasibility or desired project contents at a meeting for project promotion.

After comparing the sentiments of the participants in the meeting, the changes in the sentiment scores for each project were tracked (Figure 4b). The date the meeting started was set to 0, the number of days past the start date was calculated, and the sentiment score for each meeting date from the meeting start date to the end date was analyzed by classifying the participants. As a result, the sentiment score of the experts gradually increased to the right (F-2, F-3, R-1, R-2), and the sentiment score of civil servants had a downward slope (F-3, R-1, R-2, R-3). The sentiment score for communities showed a greater range of changes than other participants (F-3, R-1, R-2). Public officers made positive comments at the beginning of the meeting because they mainly explained the background of the project and expected effects, but had more negative comments during the planning process than in the beginning, while experts made significant positive comments depending on the progress of the project because they were mainly in a position to help the project progress and advise on the level of benefit of the project to the region. Meanwhile, as local residents participated in the preliminary plan, they can be interpreted as sensitive to the transformation and destruction of their ideas at the beginning of the project due to the intervention of experts and the central government.

Next, the relationship between the keywords mentioned in the speech was visualized through degree centrality analysis. The lines in the image indicate a correlation among words, and the size of the circle refers the number of times the word is mentioned (Figure 5). Figure 5a illustrates the result of degree centrality analysis among the keywords mentioned in the meeting for the entire meeting minutes. Throughout the minutes, “landscape-description”, “we-facility”, “people-value”, and “creation-contemplation” were primarily mentioned. In addition, the second most frequently mentioned terms were project cost, residents, needs, space, and thoughts. The specific contents related to an explanation of desirable landscape changes due to the regeneration project, concerns about the establishment of facilities to be installed in the village, and whether the value of the project could be provided to people (residents). Further, the discourse issues that can be interpreted through each word connection are summarized in

Table 7. Major discourse issues in RHRP and FVND.

Category	Network of Related Topics	Discourse Issues
RHRP	Architecture—facilities—talk RHRP—architecture—talk RHRP—facilities—talk	Concentration of discussion on planning of building or facility within the project site
	Masterplan—consultation Village—preliminary plan Residents—review Linkage—location	Necessity for consultation with other public institutions for the establishment of the masterplan and for the review of the project promotion group on the contents of the plan Selection of the location of facilities for smooth connection with neighboring cities or villages
FVND	Breakwater—masterplan—talk Masterplan—problem—talk Breakwater—problem—talk	Problems and solutions for the breakwater required for the maintenance of the fishing port, which is a core task
	Landscape—facilities—creation Region—people—review Self—payment—operation—measures Self—payment—operation—value	Discussion on the village landscape improvement project and the profit project that local residents can directly invest in

.

4.2.2. Micro-Discourse on Place-Keeping Elements

In order to analyze the micro-discourse, we identified whether the six elements of PK were included in the sentences spoken at the meeting, and sentiment analysis and degree centrality analysis were performed for each element. Sentiment analysis extracted only sentences in which any of the elements of PK are mentioned, calculated the average sentiment score for each element, and compared the difference between the whole, RHRP, and FVND (Figure 6). In general, there were many positive comments related to design and maintenance. These results were positive in relation to the layout and design of facilities, unlike the downward trend in sentiment across the overall project seen for governance members besides experts.

On the other hand, RHRP had a relatively even sentiment score for the PK factor, as there were many positive statements related to policy and partnership in addition to design and maintenance. On the other hand, in FVND, the sentiment score tended to focus only on design and maintenance. This result seems to be closely related to the decision-making structure in governance. That is, various factors were discussed during the planning process in the expert-led RHRP, while the meeting topic was focused on the installation and arrangement of facilities in the FVND led by residents. On the other hand, in the case of RHRP, which relied only on public investment in relation to funding, the sentiment score was low, whereas the sentiment score was relatively high in FVND, where private investment by local residents was made, although this was small.

After that, the sentences in which each element was mentioned were classified and a degree centrality analysis was conducted for each element (Figure 7). This helps in understanding through which words the six elements of PK are mainly explained and what the main interest is in the project (

Table 8. Main discourse issues by PK element.

Category	Network of Related Topics	Discourse Issue
Policy	Meeting—connection—direction Residents—concern—talk Today—creation—review Preliminary plan—consultation—problem	Progress and problems of the plan Consultation and exchange of opinions among governance bodies
Governance	Project cost—review—residents We—residents—review Region—needs Planning—content	Cost adjustment and cost execution timing: link between governance and funding Request for collecting opinions from residents on the project plan
Partnership	Promotion committee—concern—value Residents—progress Planning—opinion	Human composition of local residents to decide H/W and S/W: Appropriate ratio of dual composition by age, region, occupation
Funding	Space—operation—masterplan We—one—way seafood—income project—project cost	Cost issues to be reflected in the operation of the space and the basic plan: The need to increase the S/W cost to strengthen the regional capacity and a plan to secure additional financial resources for the desired facility To what extent is it possible to increase the cost burden and financial input of residents in order to promote the processing and sale of seafood as an income project? How should a building plan be established for processing and selling seafood? Will there be a project value?
Design & Maintenance	Breakwater—operation Today—landscape—architecture Parking—review—plan	Reviewing the rational land-use plan for the arrangement of buildings and parking lots, the impact of the design and exterior landscaping of the building on the village landscape, and the plan for the use and operation of the building How should the breakwater be installed for the safety of the fishing port? How should the management facilities in the fishing port be rearranged and landscape design be performed?
Evaluation	Insufficient number of comments

).

5. Discussion

This study has analyzed public-led regeneration projects in non-urban cities in Korea according to the PK framework. And Figure 8 is a schematic diagram of the analysis. These two projects were carried out with the intervention of the central government and active cooperation and participation of regional governance. The common characteristics of RHRP and FVDN were that they were influenced by the advice of the central government in terms of procedures, and attention and cost were concentrated on specific facilities such as buildings and fishing ports. As a distinct difference, in RHRP, governance was led by experts with the policy goal of developing a rural base, and the village space was improved only with public support. On the other hand, in FVDN, the local community (residents and public officials) led the governance with the policy goal of revitalizing the local economy. In addition to the maintenance of village space and port facilities through public investment, direct investment by residents was made for profitable facilities.

Both projects had high positivity and interest in design and maintenance among PK factors, since maintenance of the physical environment was the main concern. In addition, the differences in the governance mechanisms of the two projects affected the discourse of stakeholders. In the RHRP led by experts, the participation of residents and consultation with other organizations were addressed as issues, and high positive sentiments were observed for policy and partnership. On the other hand, in FVDN, which is led by the region, the cost burden of residents for profit facilities was low, but it was addressed as an issue. Accordingly, positive sentiments for PK factors other than design and maintenance were significantly lower, although the sentiment score of FVDN was relatively higher than that of RHRP in terms of funding in general.

Thus, the entities leading the governance and the method of project funding had a major impact on public-led regeneration projects implemented in non-urban cities. In this regard, the following specific points can be made.

5.1. Limited Private Investment by Universal Public Investment

The reason why public-led regeneration projects have sparked a global trend is because they are a way of providing budget support from the central government [31]. In particular, the UK’s Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) was referenced in Korea [78]. There are concerns that this method may rather exclude underdeveloped regions [79], but in Korea, massive financial support is being provided to minimize marginalized areas with the goal of selecting more than 120 sites for RHRP every year (after 2015) and 300 sites for FVDN (from 2018 to 2022).

In particular, PK theory sees cost as a very important issue because sustainable project management by the community is possible only when there is sufficient revenue from the private sector. Not only that, but the funding pressure of the public sector can also be reduced after the project is completed [60]. This case follows endogenous development, which activates local potential through local entrepreneurship, capacity building, and utilization of local resources, and allows only investment from the private sector (local residents) [80]. However, the principle not only restrains private investment outside the region, but is also limited by several factors even within the region. For example, during the planning period, there was a discussion around the necessity to create a local food store at residents’ own expense in R-1, but this was rejected by the central government on the grounds that it did not fit the purpose of the project. In R-2, there was discussion about market creation, but it was rejected on the grounds that road improvement should take precedence. In F-2, the project was abandoned by residents due to the difficulty of forming a corporation with more than 10 residents and lack of self-sufficiency for the profit project. In F-3, a seafood processing plant was planned but it failed to acquire the necessary land. The lack of other revenue items and difficulties in securing economic feasibility also played a part. Thus, in the planning process of FVDN, which sets regional economy revitalization as a project goal, a revenue project involving self-payment was discussed, but several factors limited the willingness of residents to invest. This shows that there are some remaining tasks before public-led regeneration projects can be pursued with an endogenous development method. Accordingly, the principle of public investment in non-urban regeneration projects aims to create public-interested financial resources such that public values in the region can be realized as an institution, but limiting other investments, that is, investment of the private sector, to regional boundaries is expected to reduce the possibility of sustainable project management.

5.2. Formal Partnership under State Control

Partnership is for managing local operations, but in reality, there are many challenges involved. First, in principle, the composition of the partnership is led by the local community and its responsibility. However, actual partnership is evaluated as tending to be centered on the national or local government [81]. In particular, in the public-led regeneration project, there were many cases in which the public built a cooperative system or encouraged the participation of residents as it became the main agent of the partnership formation, and the authority of actual decision-making was carried out by the organization leading the project [82,83]. Local communities followed government-determined policies, resulting in restraint. That is, in regeneration projects, the local community is controlled by the state, and these project are criticized for not actually strengthening the capacity of the local community [84,85].

The presented case is exposed to the above critical phenomena. First, the plan established in the region was significantly diluted as the final plan was decided by the state. This final plan begins with a preliminary plan drawn up by the participating region. After being selected for public offering, the masterplan prepared by the project promotion organization, the advice of the Central Planning Advisory Group, and the central government review take place. This planning process lasts for a total of more than 10 meetings and takes more than a year. Furthermore, the Central Planning Advisory Group, which is the means of state control, in all cases pointed out that the purpose of the project should be strictly observed, and requested revisions and changes to the plan established in the region. For example, in F-2, the construction of a land bridge connecting the island and the mainland was presented as a regional agenda to revitalize the local economy. The feasibility of the project was shown, but the central government rejected it as it was different from the purpose of the project. Ultimately, those involved in F-2 had no choice but to focus on the maintenance of the fishing port just like the other projects. Those involved in R-1 and R-2 wanted a park to improve the local ecological environment, but the plan was changed to focus on improving the road environment.

Central government intervention in the planning stages also affected the sentiment score on governance. In particular, the local community was most sensitive to the long-term adjustment of the plan. In addition, looking at the voice of the local community shown in the minutes, the averages were only 17% (RHRP) and 36% (FVDN), respectively. These values are lower than those of experts, which were 68% (RHRP) and 40% (FVDN). In particular, in the expert-led RHRP, the voice of the local community was significantly lower. Although it is not possible to completely verify the formal partnership observed in the regeneration project using only the sentiment change and the quantity of remarks of the above local community, the local community was found to have insufficient organized power under the control of the state or had a passive attitude toward governance. Thus, it would be difficult to regard a public-led regeneration project in a non-urban region as a regime emphasizing interdependence between the public and the private sector, or as having relative autonomy and informality.

5.3. New Role of Experts Leading Governance

Experts participating in governance are advisors who support and assist the planning process with their own expertise, but do not have the authority to make decisions. For this reason, the involvement of experts can increase the feasibility of a plan. Accordingly, experts have conflicting interests with widely distributed authority. According to their professional roles, they can be divided into experts as neutral civil servants, experts as community consensus makers, experts who play an entrepreneurial role, and experts who advocate for the socially disadvantaged [86]. The role of experts required in the regeneration project was not included in general urban, architecture, landscaping, or regional planning professional education. It expands into a form of social activist or consulting role.

Meanwhile, the experts who participated in the cases mostly comprised three to eight university professors. According to the minutes of the meeting, they made the local community understand the project goals, demanded that their ideas be accepted by the local community, or exerted pressure on public officers to implement the plan in order for the project to proceed smoothly. Furthermore, they were contracted to participate in village management and operation for three years after maintenance was complete. It is a positive factor that they serve as continuous, long-term community consensus makers. Since most of the experts are university professors, they play a major role in implementing effective planning ideas. However, there are limitations in the performance of various roles. For example, although these cases allow for limited private investment, they have not been able to extend to an entrepreneurial role, such as suggesting a future profit model or connecting investors.

A study on urban regeneration projects implemented by Seoul states that the local community has an interest in a specific regeneration project and a low satisfaction with governance activities. On the other hand, experts give importance to the promotion of organization and the sense of community [87]. This was also observed in the sentiment change of experts and sentiment score for PK factors revealed in the study. The neutral position and focus of experts on this project will be the driving force for governance. That is, the participation of experts in any form is required in order to overcome the decline in sentiment of the local community under the possibility that the project may not go in the desired direction. Accordingly, experts need to focus on how to offset community anxiety about public-led regeneration projects.

6. Conclusions

In order to analyze the recent public-led regeneration projects, this study analyzed cases in which different project objectives and implementation methods were carried out in rural and fishing villages in Korea. The central government facilitated financial support and formed governance and partnerships by enacting a law to secure publicness in the regeneration project. In addition, by intervening in the planning process, which requires cooperation and negotiation, decision-making was carried out in a combination of bottom-up and top-down styles. This study found that the impact on the regeneration project differs depending on the difference in the members who lead the governance. Based on these results, we found a distorted image of the PK, which appears as public-led regeneration projects carried out under bureaucratic control. This implies that regeneration projects can have a negative impact on their role as priming and sustainable management operations. Accordingly, the following policy improvements are required in order for the public-led regeneration project to be carried out and managed from a longer-term perspective.

(1)

In terms of funding, considering that public finance has a clear deadline, there is a need to stimulate private investment, which is allowed in a limited way. Thus, the selection of the income project should be in line with the autonomy of the region and the project effectiveness will have to be converted into a public review method. Furthermore, in order to secure financial resources within the scarce region, conditions for investment outside the region should also be established. In this regard, the positive administration of the local government is required.

(2)

Regarding partnership, there is a need to relax the constraints on the local community by the public authority. A uniformity of design and maintenance was observed as the opinions of the local community were rejected by the central government. The central government should not make the purpose of the project a strict criterion, so that the morale of the local community will not be reduced. In addition, the central government is required to change their attitude such that the special situation of the region is reflected in the plan, and that there is no difference between the preliminary plan and the final plan.

(3)

In relation to governance, the neutral position of experts becomes the driving force that leads the project in the long term. At the same time, it is necessary to form a diverse workforce to represent the views of the residents. As a tool that can realize this, this study urges the creation of an intermediary organization close to or residing in the region, that performs tasks such as networking, capacity building, resource services, mediation, policy promotion, investigation and research, consulting and consultation, coordination, and information gathering [88,89]. This organization will be an expert organization “delegated to self-complete authority”. It is expected that it will be possible to overcome the limitations of time-limited public support and perform responsible duties.

Overall, promoting private investments, alleviating constraints of local policies, and building intermediary organizations are needed to achieve the goals of regeneration projects. This study provides three recommendations focused on regeneration projects in non-urban areas. Although these recommendations may contribute to fostering regeneration projects, several points are needed to supplement future study. To investigate the regeneration process completely, extra data are needed such as participants’ comments during meetings. Providing an action plan or guideline is also required to guide each project successfully.

This study is significant in that it analyzed public-led regeneration projects in an integrated and holistic way through the PK framework. On the other hand, this study focused only on the planning process, and generalizing the results and conclusion would be difficult. It was insufficient to achieve completeness of the content, as collecting data on evaluation among the PK elements was in practice technically impossible. Thus, from a long-term perspective, future research on public-led regeneration projects should maintain an integrated method, while performing post hoc analyses. This will help clarify the compositional organization of governance and the dynamics of the PK elements.