Assessing Urban Water Management Sustainability of a Megacity: Case Study of Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

Many cities are facing various water-related challenges caused by rapid urbanization and climate change. Moreover, a megacity may pose a greater risk due to its scale and complexity for coping with impending challenges. Infrastructure and governance also differ by the level of development of a city which indicates that the analysis of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and water governance are site-specific. We examined the status of IWRM of Seoul by using the City Blueprint®Approach which consists of three different frameworks: (1) Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF), (2) City Blueprint Framework (CBF) and (3) the water Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). The TPF summarizes the main social, environmental and financial pressures that may impede water management. The CBF assesses IWRM of the urban water cycle. Finally, the GCF identifies key barriers and opportunities to develop governance capacity. The results indicate that nutrient recovery from wastewater, stormwater separation, and operation cost recovery of water and sanitation services are priority areas for Seoul. Furthermore, the local sense of urgency, behavioral internalization, consumer willingness to pay, and financial continuation are identified as barriers limiting Seoul's governance capacity. We also examined and compared the results with other mega-cities, to learn from their experiences and plans to cope with the challenges in large cities.

Application of the City Blueprint Approach in Landlocked Asian Countries: A Case Study of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

“…Based on the BCI, one city (Jakarta) was categorized as "Cities lacking basic water services", five cities (Ahmedabad, Bandung, Bangkok, HCMC and Manila) were categorized as "Wasteful cities", three cities (Hohhot, Taipei, Tianjin) were categorized as "Water efficient cities", and two cities (Seoul, Singapore) were "Resource efficient cities" [14]. The cities with high BCI values, i.e., Seoul and Singapore, also have the highest GDP in comparison with the other assessed cities [22]. Approximately half of these Asian cities have GDPs between 2500 and 7000 USD and are in the same Blue City Index (BCI) categorization as Ulaanbaatar, which has a GDP of 4100 USD [26].…”

“…This is done by performing semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from corresponding authorities, government bodies, and researchers to assess the real situation. Recently published examples of integrated analyses of cities, including assessment of governance capacities, are Seoul [22] and Cape Town [23]. The GCF is structured into three dimensions (knowing, wanting and enabling), nine key conditions and 27 indicators (Table 4).…”

“…The GCF is structured into three dimensions (knowing, wanting and enabling), nine key conditions and 27 indicators (Table 4). A Likert-type scaling is used to give scores on each indicator, which range from very encouraging (++) to very limiting (−−) [21][22][23]. Table 4.…”

The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities

“…Kim et al [3] examined the status of integrated water resources management of Seoul using the city blueprint approach. which consists of three different frameworks: (1) the trends and pressures framework, (2) the city blueprint framework and (3) the water governance capacity framework.…”

Pluvial Flooding in Utrecht: On Its Way to a Flood-Proof City

“…The framework's indicators are consistently scored according to an indicator-specific Likert scale ranging from very limiting (− −) to very encouraging (+ +) to the governance capacity. The GCF has been applied to assess 41 water-related challenges in 15 cities across the globe [32,45,[53][54][55][56][57][58].…”