低影響開発インフラのライフサイクルガバナンス：韓国の政策と技術ガイダンスの比較分析

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a structured framework for analyzing lifecycle governance of green infrastructure, useful for comparative policy research.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for urban planners and infrastructure managers on integrating lifecycle considerations into LID projects.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests policy gaps and a framework for improving governance of low-impact development infrastructure.

Low-impact development (LID) and nonpoint-source pollution reduction facilities are increasingly expected to function as long-term components of urban infrastructure rather than as isolated environmental features. Their sustainability depends not only on technical design but also on institutional review, construction assurance, operation and maintenance, performance verification, information continuity, and adaptive policy learning. This study comparatively examines the content and structure of three major South Korean guidance documents issued in 2013, 2016, and 2020: the national LID Technology-Element Guideline, Seoul’s Guidance for the LID Prior-Consultation System, and the national Manual for the Installation and Management/Operation of Nonpoint-Source Pollution Reduction Facilities. A directed qualitative content analysis was conducted using seven literature-informed lifecycle-governance dimensions covering problem framing, planning and approval, facility selection and sizing, installation and construction control, operation and maintenance, monitoring and performance verification, and adaptive feedback. Documentary provisions were assessed using a four-level ordinal scale ranging from absent to strong coverage. The analysis indicates a functional expansion of governance provisions across the three documents, from LID principles and technology selection to pre-permit review, quantitative runoff-management requirements, installation guidance, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and performance testing. However, the documents collectively show discontinuities between approval and construction verification, construction and long-term operation, maintenance and compliance, monitoring and policy learning, and lifecycle information management. In response, this study proposes a six-stage lifecycle-governance framework linking planning, pre-permit verification, construction commissioning, asset registration, risk-based maintenance and monitoring, and adaptive policy learning. The framework is presented as an analytical and normative synthesis rather than an empirically validated governance model. Because the study is limited to documentary analysis, the findings do not demonstrate actual implementation effectiveness, regulatory compliance, maintenance quality, or environmental performance and should be validated through future empirical and comparative research.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/su18178866first seen 2026-09-08 05:28:53 · last seen 2026-09-21 05:19:04