Participatory Planning of Public Architecture under the Condition of Newly Exploring and Organizing Various Participants: The Case of School Facility in Korea

Abstract

Discussions and practices aimed at improving the learning environment of public school facilities built in the 1990s to fit the current century are ongoing. There have been improvements to the school environment in Korea for approximately a decade that involved user participation and collaboration in the design process. This study aims to determine the characteristics of user participation in consultations on one such project and reflects on the condition that participants in public building projects be newly sought out and organized. This is a qualitative study that tracks the actions and results of participants and related subjects from an exploratory point of view, targeting the Seoul Eunro Elementary School (SEES) project. The participants did not include users who raised issues about the school space or influenced the start of the project, moreover, they had no experience participating in public projects. Thereby, the participants should be categorized into newly or partly reorganized groups. The administration and experts should focus on collecting opinions, including design training, and detailed roles should be assigned for the same.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

As many countries around the world recognize the importance of the educational environment, there have been many discussions and new practices in policy and design. The educational environment affects the health, behavior, education, and development of students [1]. In Korea, it was only after the 2000s that design issues of public school facilities have been discussed in detail. Since 2011, the policy foundation has been laid, and the government’s financial resources have been actively used. The US and European countries such as the UK have already attempted various ways to improve education besides focusing on facility improvement [2]. Discussions of the direction of education to promote Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) continue [3], as well as discussions regarding how user participation can be effectively realized, not only in the process of creating a facility, but also in its subsequent operation. Teachers and students know best what is necessary and important to them, thus their participation ultimately ensures students have a healthy learning environment in terms of various aspects [4].

User participation plays an important role in addressing urban and residential environment creation, energy production and consumption, and unequal distribution with respect to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [5,6]. Above all, users’ participation in the planning and decision-making process, as well as in operations, has been reported to be effective in the sustainability of public places [7,8]. Users do not passively accept the facilities supplied by administration, but by devising the necessary space, programs, and facilities, they actively use the place and increase its sustainability. In particular, it is important to consider the opinions of a variety of users and specific stakeholders [9] and to develop and implement condition-specific methods to promote commonality, rather than focusing on finding solutions that suit everyone [10].

After the colonial period, in Korea, where educational facilities were supplied in bulk by the central government, public discussions about the problem of the educational environment began approximately 10 years ago. Korea is implementing projects to physically improve the educational environment by devising directions and methods to address the circumstance that most modern schools in Korea were built in the early 1900s during the Japanese colonial period, as well as after liberation. At that time, many schools were built that resembled prisons because the goal of control and management was important [11] (Figure 1).

Awareness of this has spread, and in particular, UK and US school design regulations, processes, and methods have served as important references. From the beginning, users were not considered in the process, and as a result, school facilities that received financial support and services from the government were built quite bureaucratically. Accordingly, the first step toward improving the learning environment in Korean schools started with the introduction of methods for user participation [16] (p. 50).

1.2. Research Background

Improvement of the school learning environment has been approached through consideration of several factors, and the need for design improvement has been emphasized [17] (p. 6). It has been revealed that the environment itself has a very close correlation with students’ physical and mental health. Furthermore, it has been discussed that the elements constituting the architectural space and the model itself should be composed ecologically [18,19]. However, the problem of uniformity of the learning space, which became more explicit in the 2000s, could be solved by recruitment of design experts. The users of school facilities are not administrators or experts, but students and teachers. Thus, the effectiveness of the design process in which students and teachers participate was discussed. Unlike the US and Europe, only after the 1990s did discussions of user participation in public projects begin in Korea [16] (p. 7). They were implemented with an emphasis on community cooperation concerning the regeneration projects [9].

In the US, citizen participation in public decision-making began in earnest as early as the 1960s. In 1966, economist Louis Winnick referred to “Place Prosperity to People Prosperity,” emphasizing people-centered local development and regeneration projects. More precisely, while the physical and visual aspects of the environment were considered critical for improvement in the past, the view that the culture, society, and experiences surrounding people shape their identity became prevalent [20] (p. 185). In addition, Sherry Arnstein analyzed cases of planning through participation in the US Department of Housing, Education, and Welfare (HUD) in 1969, and attempted to categorize public participation by stage. Arnstein’s discussion of types of participation has considerably impacted Korea’s practice [21].

In the case of the UK, a full-fledged discussion of community participation started in the 1970s. In particular, when the New Labor Party emerged in 1997, the UK actively envisioned and implemented civic participation through the New Deal for Communities (NDC), which was the target of heavy investment of national capital. This background and practice in the UK are common in Korea [22,23]. Marilyn Taylor analyzed the participation of modern people and discussed its characteristics in the case of Korea [24]. She emphasized that in an increasingly complex society, defining the categories of participants according to social class or level of participation is too simplistic. Therefore, it is critical to explore the circumstances and conditions in which participation occurs [25].

In Japan, a neighboring country, community recovery and public space improvement through the participation of local residents have been practiced in the name of “village making” since the 1960s. This had a decisive influence on the beginning of the discussion of collaborative design in Korea, and Japanese cases have been analyzed in many discussions [26].

In Korea, discussions to improve public spaces through user participation began in earnest around the 2000s [16] (p. 50). In particular, such discussions regarding buildings started with school facilities. Initially, research on such measures mainly involved a review of participatory theory and practice in the UK and US [27,28,29]. In the 2010s, research on the applicability of such measures to Korean schools continued [30,31]. Recently, discussions of methodological advances have been conducted by comparing and analyzing domestic and foreign cases [21,23,32]. In addition, there have been studies of methodological improvements through participant satisfaction surveys targeting domestic cases [33,34].

Table 1. Major trends and research.

Division	Contents
Major overseas trends	The necessity of citizen participation in the public decision-making process		–1960s/USA
	User participation methodology		1960–70s/USA
	Participation of residents in community regeneration projects (New Deal for Communities, Making a Village)		1970s/UK
			1960–90s/Japan
	Education for sustainable development (ESD)		2000s/UNESCO
	Expansion of discussions on the need to improve school facilities through user participation		After 2000/Korea
Major Research	Introduction to user participation design method	Review of the participation process in UK and US (Literature review)	2000–2010 [24,25,26]
		Research on the applicability to Korean schools (Literature review)	2010–2022 [27,28]
		Comparative analysis of processes overseas and Korea, and methodological advancement (Literature review, Case study)	2010–2022 [20,29,30]
	Investigation of actual conditions after participation	Improving participation methodology through participant satisfaction surveys (Survey)	Around 2020 [31,32]
This research	Suggestion of a method appropriate to the specifics of user participation conditions	Case analysis: In-depth analysis of the process and results of the Korean case, and points to note through identification of conditions and characteristics (Literature review, Case study)

shows the flow of overseas trends that have influenced discussions of school facility improvement in Korea and lists the major studies.

In other words, Korea has been concentrating on reviewing and improving the methodology based on overseas cases for about 20 years. Many researchers are aware that now is the time to understand the conditions and characteristics of participation in Korea and devise suitable measures, rather than simply diversifying and upgrading methods [16,35]. Many studies have already shown that planning various participation methods such as workshops or education does not necessarily increase the rate or effect of participation. Therefore, at this point, it is not necessary to compare domestic and foreign participation processes and methods to identify what is lacking, but to identify differences in the conditions for participation and to derive appropriate strategies and characteristics.

In countries where modernization was rapid and public input was critical, it was much more likely that the administration of a project would seek out and organize participants after recognizing the importance of cooperation than it was likely that the voluntary participation of citizens would be implemented first, allowing them to actively influence public projects. According to research, in the public building projects of the 2000s, 70% of the total participatory planning projects involved newly sought and organized participants [36].

Moreover, teachers and students naturally form groups of users in schools, in contrast to facilities used by unspecified people such as general public libraries or public sports facilities, where the users constantly change. Accordingly, starting from the initial practice, most planning has been conducted so that the administration and experts, who are the main planning body, can find the right people for the process, form a group, and cooperate. In the case of Korea, the conditions for user participation are different from those in the UK and the US. In other words, most of the school facility improvement projects promoted by the government in Korea must newly find and organize participants from among those who lack experience or awareness of participatory planning.

This is an empirical study of a case in which the administration had to newly seek and organize various participants because there were no voluntary participants. This study investigates how the participation of various users in the school improvement project occurred step by step and what the characteristics were of the participants under these conditions. Above all, it provides points to consider when implementing participatory user planning under conditions similar to those in Korea in the future.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials: SEES, the Public School

According to the Building Act, schools are educational and research facilities, including kindergartens, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and universities. In Korea, schools are classified according to the party that manages the institution. If the institution is managed by the state, it is defined as a national school; if by a local government, it is a public school; and if by a corporation or individual, it is a private school. Among these, national and public schools correspond to public architecture that is reviewed by the National Public Building Center (NPBC) for planning. In particular, these school facilities are in the highest range regarding total floor area among public architecture projects promoted annually [37]. The cases analyzed in this paper involve public schools. For public schools, each city and the provincial office of education can determine matters related to the establishment of a school under the superintendent of education and must secure a budget by presenting a plan for new construction or remodeling three years before its opening [38]. Regarding the construction of school facilities, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act stipulates the standard area of rooms such as classrooms and gymnasiums according to the characteristics of the school and the number of students.

Most of the public architecture in Korea, including public schools, has traditionally been based on authoritative decisions, as the government promoted and implemented most procedures after the Japanese colonial period from the early 1900s until the 2000s. Discussions on improving the quality and construction procedures began in the late 1990s [39] (p. 2). Specifically, the most important point was that public architecture for many ordinary citizens is not decided by the public, which has been part of discussions of public architecture in other countries [40]. It was only in 2007 that the publicity of architecture was discussed through the Framework Act on Building, and in 2013 its definition and the procedure for its creation were legally stipulated. The Act on the Promotion of Building Service Industry enacted in 2013 defines public architecture as a building or spatial environment created by public institutions. Specifically, after revision of the law in 2018, public institutions such as the central government and local governments had to perform preliminary planning while promoting the creation of public buildings. The National Public Building Center (NPBC) or the local public building support center reviews it. NPBC shares opinions and the department that promotes public projects can design and construct by selecting experts such as architects after reflecting on the review opinions and receiving deliberation [41].

The recent trends in architectural planning for school facilities in Korea are as follows. Over the past 10 years, awareness of the aging of school facilities and the demand for renovation have been increasing. Moreover, establishing a new relationship with the surrounding urban environment, which has changed rapidly in the 2000s, is emerging as a major task [37]. Specifically, because recent schools include not only classrooms but also kindergartens, classes for students with disabilities, and after-school care classes, they have to consider a wide range of users. Accordingly, an ongoing discussion states that the needs of these users should be reflected instead of creating a uniform area of 60 to 70 m² per classroom according to existing school standard design regulations [42].

In Korea, a design method that cooperates with users was attempted for the first time in a school facility in 2002 [16] (pp. 7–9). Since then, strategies and methods have been discussed in increasing detail. In Korea, as of 2019, school projects occupied the largest range of facilities created through user participation plans [36] (Figure 2).

This study analyzes the case of Seoul Eunro Elementary School (SEES), a public school in Korea. In 2011, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (SMOE) announced the User Participation School Design Promotion Plan as a starting point for improving school spaces in Korea, according to which one school was completely renovated in the first year and three schools the following year, and the plan was gradually expanded thereafter. SEES was confirmed as the first project.

SEES is a case in which a variety of users participated and their opinions were reflected. It has since become an important model for public building improvement projects through user participation in Korea. This project has been previously mentioned in academic discussions and the media [43]. However, the conditions for participation and the characteristics of each cooperative entity have not been analyzed. Thus, it has only been approached superficially, focusing on the fact that users participated and cooperated.

2.2. Methods

Figure 3 shows the flow and method of this study based on case analysis. This study first identifies the conditions for newly seeking and organizing participants, and then analyzes the content of user participation and participant characteristics at each stage. Then, it identifies important characteristics of these conditions and discusses necessary strategies for future action. These flows and methods were similarly applied in participatory public building planning studies [9,16].

This qualitative study traces the actions and results of participants and related entities. The author did not implement or participate in the project. The investigation was conducted through the collection of formal administrative data (official documents related to the promotion process) and informal data (meeting minutes and memos on specific details of participation) on all matters from an exploratory point of view. For matters that could not be confirmed through the data, interviews were conducted with relevant persons. Data collection for case analysis was conducted from 1 March to 30 September 2019.

3. Results

3.1. Planning: Seek out and Invite the First Participants to a Workshop to Envision a Participation Method

The government’s plan to change the school environment by giving importance to the views of users was not developed through discussions with the users. As the policy was promoted in this way, the Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI), a Korean educational facility research institute, conducted a study of the development of quality indicators of school facility design and developed the Korean Educational Building Design Indicator (KEBID). School and public facility design indicators have been investigated in Korea since the 2000s. However, in many cases, the design quality indicator (DQI) and design quality indicator for schools (DQIS) in the UK were interpreted and applied. Accordingly, KEDI adapted DQI and DQIS to the Korean context and established a suitable KEBID system [44] (pp. i–viii).

The first user participation in the SEES project occurred during the application of this study. Teachers and administrative staff were aware of the context in which the SEES improvement project was decided. At that time, nine teachers were identified and organized into a “workshop group,” and KEBID workshops were held for them. KEDI supplemented KEBID through collaboration with the workshop group and prepared subsequent processes. Specifically, through this pre-workshop, SEES members were able to identify the school’s problems and directions for improvement. To summarize, in the user participation process during the planning stage, users were newly organized for the pre-workshop, and they participated only once.

3.2. Participatory Design: Continuously Seeking and Organizing Suitable Participants for Each Design Process

3.2.1. Architect Selection and Participatory Design Methodology Consultation

Users’ full-fledged involvement in the SEES project started with the expert selection process. In this case, experts refer to a facilitator (coordinator) who plans user participation, and an architect who designs the structure in collaboration with the facilitator. To select architects, the Seoul Dongjak Gwanak District Office of Education (SDGDOE), the local education office, announced a “User Participation Architectural Design Competition.” This was the first design competition in which users participated and collaborated in the construction process of public architecture in schools in Korea. The announcement specified that this project was aimed at creating a school with input from its users (e.g., students, parents, staff, and residents) to overcome the existing bureaucratic and uniform design process. Specifically, because citizens did not promote the project, the purpose was to select proposals that could induce new user participation. Therefore, unlike a general case, consideration for participatory design work (approximately $26,000) was additionally included in the design service cost [45]. The scope was a total renovation of the school building, with a site area of 20,936 m² and a total floor area of 10,175 m². The existing building included 21 general classes, two classes for students with disabilities, five classes for kindergarten, and ancillary facilities such as a gym and a cafeteria (

Table 2. Content of the design competition announcement for selection of an architect for the SEES project.

Division	Contents
Scale	Land area	20,936 m2
	Gross floor area	10,175 m2
Budget	Construction cost	$10.8 million
	Design cost	$430,000
Purpose	Efficient space planning and future-oriented design are necessary for various learning methods Applying a collaborative method that encourages user participation in the design process
Qualification	Architect’s license, registration of the architect’s office Joint application possible
Documents to be submitted	Various supporting documents such as architect’s license Design contest application form and works
Selection process and criteria	1 task briefing session 1st and 2nd screening 40 points for design planning, 40 points for user collaborative design planning, and 10 points for other skills

).

The education office selected a facilitator for user participatory planning before finally deciding on an architect. The selection of the architect was decided by the evaluation committee, which included the facilitator. According to the announcement, the architect had to submit a design proposal. However, because of the lack of specific guidelines, the submission could be a “participatory design proposal” on encouraging user participation and proceeding with collaborative design, as well as making a design proposal similar to the existing competition.

In the final stage of the selection of architect, a briefing session was held. A “user group” of approximately 30 SEES teachers participated in the Q&A and discussion [17]. This group was different from the workshop group. It was newly formed, and although they were not given the final decision-making authority on the selection of architect, they acted as consultants to present opinions on the process. Immediately after the architect was selected, there was a discussion in the expert group. This group comprised education offices, school officials, facilitators, and architects, who held three meetings over approximately two months. The future collaborative design method and process were specifically determined by synthesizing the opinions presented through the user group during the architect selection process (

Table 3. User participation in the planning and expert selection process of the SEES project (chronological order).

Phase	Contents		Decision Maker	Participants and Characteristics
Planning	Announcing plans for school facility improvement through participatory planning		SMOE 1	-
	SEES renovation decision		SMOE 1	-
	KEBID Workshop		KEDI 2	Workshop Group (9 teachers)	1st new organization (once)
Design	Expert selection	Facilitator selection (Evaluation Committee)	SDGDOE 3	-
		Architect selection	SDGDOE 3	User Group (30 teachers)	2nd new organization (once)
	Expert discussion	Deciding collaborative design methods and processes	Facilitator, Architect	Expert Group (Office of Education and school officials, facilitator, architect)	3rd new organization (3 times)

¹ Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, ² Korean Educational Development Institute, ³ Seoul Dongjak Gwanak District Office of Education.

).

3.2.2. Participatory Design

In the planning and architect selection process, the participation group comprised mainly experts, school officials, and teachers. Furthermore, users such as students were included in the design phase. The user-centered collaborative design process was led by experts. They organized three working groups, including not only teachers and staff, but also students and parents, who are the main users of the school space.

First, an educational program was held for the students’ working group. It was a five-week design training called “Design Finland” for approximately 20 students from grades three to six. Experts hired a curator at the Finnish National Museum of Culture in Korea. The study aimed to raise awareness and interest regarding the importance of public space design among students who had never received design education.

After that, four workshops were held during the design process.

In the first workshop, three working groups consisting of teachers, students, and parents gathered to discuss ways to improve school facilities under the theme “Drawing the School I Want to Go to.” In the workshop, each working group had a program to write or draw on paper. As images such as nature, safety, and comfort were most commonly used, the architect decided the basic direction of the design based on these keywords. The second workshop was organized for the working group of teachers and parents to develop and discuss plans for the arrangement of buildings and the zoning of major programs for a layout planning design game. The architect presented models of the lower- and upper-grade classrooms and those for children with disabilities, canteens, and gymnasiums. User teams were free to design layouts using them. Based on the results, the architect decided on the final layout. In the third workshop, only the teachers’ working group participated, and more detailed spatial programs and elements were discussed through the classroom cluster design game. The program aimed to arrange classrooms, stairs, decks, and other facilities with design tools, and experts collected opinions on the composition of the interior space. The fourth workshop was held as a mid-term briefing session. The architect showed design drawings that reflected the opinions gathered in the process. Three working groups of teachers, students, and parents, as well as administrative officials, participated and listened to explanations (Figure 4).

Along with designing education programs and workshops, experts conducted additional research and interviews. The research had two main aspects. First, an investigation of external spatial characteristics was carried out. Unlike previously, general students and elementary and kindergarten teachers participated without a separate participant organization. This investigation was conducted by attaching a sticker to the board using a printed image. The results revealed that the elementary school teachers preferred tidy facilities, safety, and nature, whereas kindergarten teachers preferred safe play facilities and nature. Among the students, the preference for play space was high, and this result was reflected in the design of the external space through discussions with the architect. The second investigation was conducted to gather opinions on unit classrooms, focusing on the students’ and teachers’ working groups. The architect drew a basic design plan based on the contents that had been discussed and conducted a survey to collect additional opinions on the details. Therefore, by including the opinions of many teachers, unlike the previous design, a lower-grade classroom, a shoe-changing room, a kindergarten, an after-school care class, and a cafeteria were arranged on the first floor, and administrative rooms were conceived on the second floor.

In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with each teacher regarding the design of special classrooms, such as classrooms for those with disabilities, daycare classes, and kindergartens. Teachers in classrooms used by students with disabilities demanded toilets and shower facilities in each classroom. They also discussed the placement of these students away from senior classrooms and health rooms, because of these students’ sensitivity to noise. Furthermore, according to the teachers’ opinions, it was necessary to arrange a toilet and a textbook production room between classrooms in kindergarten and to separate the play area from the elementary school.

Experts led the design process by collecting or negotiating users’ opinions while conducting workshops for approximately five months and additional research and interviews for approximately three months. The results of each process were reflected as much as possible [43]. In this specific design process, the fourth newly formed working group continued to intervene in education and workshops. Further investigation and interview processes involved an unspecified number of students and teachers, without finding and organizing new participants (

Table 4. User participation in the design process of the SEES project (chronological order) (Source: [16] (p. 181); reproduced by the author).

Program	Subject	Contents	Participants	Participants Characteristics	Design Reflection
Education	Design Finland	Design training (five weeks)	Working group (students)	4th new organization (once)	-
Workshop 1	Drawing the “School I Want to Go to”	Written or picture expressions	Working group (teachers, students, and parents)	4th new organization continuation (once)	Basic design direction
Workshop 2	Layout planning design game	Model arrangement	Working group (teachers and parents)	4th new organization continuation (once)	Architectural layout direction
Workshop 3	Classroom cluster design game	Arrangement of interior facilities with design tools	Working group (teachers)	4th new organization continuation (once)	Interior space configuration
Workshop 4	Mid-term briefing	Disclosure of design proposal reflecting workshop results, interim inspection	Working groups (teachers, students, and parents)	4th new organization continuation (once)	-
Research	External space preference survey	Sticker voting	Elementary and kindergarten teachers, students	unspecified users (once)	Exterior design direction
	Collecting opinions on unit classrooms (discussion on basic draft)	Survey	Working groups (students and teachers)	4th new organization continuation (once)	Classroom composition and detailed facility arrangement
Interview	Collecting opinions on special classes	Interview	Special teacher groups	5th new organization (once)	Detailed needs in the classroom

). These participant consultations and design decision processes were disclosed online (e.g., on the school website), and parents were notified. Accordingly, those who were not able to participate in person could present their opinions as well.

3.3. Disclosure of Construction Process and after Completion

After approximately eight months of consultations, the architect proposed a new design, and based on this, the detailed design and construction began (Figure 5). During this period, the construction was gradually conducted over two years, as students had to continue to attend school. During this period, all schedules were continuously communicated online and offline. However, user participation in the program did not occur as before, and there were no additional demands or publicized topics related to the construction.

This project was carried out under the condition that the administrators and experts find and organize the participants themselves. Nevertheless, planning did not only focus on those closely involved in the planning and design process. Nor was the focus the absolute convergence of all opinions. Additionally, all users, including the working group, did not necessarily gather together. There was a process of understanding and suggesting the necessity and direction of school improvement according to the characteristics of each group; accordingly, administration and experts were able to identify and reflect on common or essential matters. The architect implemented the lines and motion of images requested by the users, rather than sticking to the initial design of each building. The users’ opinions were reflected in the relationship between the programs and added rooms. Therefore, there was no business delay due to conflicts between stakeholders. Further, the space required by users is actively being used. As the requirements and ideas presented by the participants during the discussion process were reflected in the design in a specific way, related programs could be implemented. For example, it was discussed that woodworking, etiquette, and technical rooms would be added, and programs have been actively pursued. Specifically, by conducting in-depth interviews regarding special classes, problems were resolved and supplemented so that specialized programs for students could be practically operated, not only as an affiliated facility of SEES [16] (p. 186).

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion of the Results of Case Analysis

The strategy and characteristics for improving the public architecture of schools, which has been rigidly regulated in Korea, are as follows.

• Achieving the primary purpose of school improvement by transitioning to user-participatory planning

Case analyses have shown that much attention has been paid to planning with “users” while promoting innovation of the “process” to improve school facilities in Korea. This trend has continued for approximately 10 years. More precisely, the learning environment is improved as users participate in the design process. To overcome the general process in Korea in which only the administration and experts played a role in the promotion, design, and decision-making process of public architecture projects, users were included in the production process of the building. Accordingly, several stakeholders could derive results together.

Approximately five months of planning were needed to improve the school environment through collaboration with users, three months for the expert selection process, and two months for the collaborative design method and process. Thus, user participation occurred three times. In the specific design process, users participated in four workshops for five weeks of design education and then for five months, which enabled a discussion between the architect and the users. Users also participated in the additional surveys and interviews. As a result, compared to the typical school project, which takes five to six months for an architect to design, this project took eight months, an increase of 1.5 times.

• Change of participants in the conditions of finding and organizing users and focusing on collecting and reflecting opinions

Specifically, this project describes the characteristics of participation in the context of newly formed participant groups. Teachers or students who raised problems and voiced the need for improvement of the school learning environment or contributed to the decision of the project were not included. First, planning was centered on administrative officials, and participants who could discuss it were sought out and included. The participant groups consisted of school administrators, teachers, students, and parents. Users who were found and organized in this early stage did not consistently act as participants in the subsequent process.

In the planning and expert selection process of the SEES project, user participation took place three times, and each participant group was newly organized. Initially, the participants were organized as a workshop group of nine teachers. Subsequently, a new user group of 30 teachers who had participated in the architect selection process was formed. In the consultation process following the selection, an expert group that included only administrative officials and experts decided on the collaborative design method and process. In the specific design process, the newly formed working groups participated and collaborated in design education, four workshops, and a survey process. Depending on the course, only the students’ working group attended, and sometimes those of teachers and parents were included. In the process of further investigation and interviews, not only the existing working groups but also the special teacher groups for new consultations were newly formed. Specifically, as it was necessary to collect the opinions of many people about the external space, unspecified students and teachers participated instead of a separate organization.

The direction of planning through user participation to improve school facilities was organized by the administration, which, together with experts, decided on the method and process. Subsequently, the planning and design process was conducted under the leadership of administrative officials and experts. Participants were identified and organized according to the characteristics of their opinions. Accordingly, except for unspecified users, the five organized groups might have included some participants who had been initially sought out, but generally have newly formed characteristics.

Under the condition of the participation of newly sought and organized users in public projects, the administration and experts not only planned the project in the early stage, but also led the subsequent process and held decision-making power. Specifically, in this case, it cannot be guaranteed that the organization that was initially sought out and constituted was highly voluntary, with a high sense of participation and, accordingly, leading the design creatively [46]. Therefore, it is essential to organize the participating users in the beginning as narrowly as possible [16] (p. 324). Although this has long been a point of discussion, it had not been implemented [47]. In the subsequent process, it is necessary to diversify the scope of participants by reconfiguring the initial participants so that they do not continue participating in the initial groups [48]. As a result, various users could participate in the program, and some groups could be reconfigured to participate repeatedly according to the need. Accordingly, the aim was to prevent the repetition of opinions of some users, and not for the administration and experts to select participants according to their favorable circumstances. In this collaborative design, since a consensus on problems and directions of improvement was not initially achieved, different opinions of the participants were collected and reflected upon as much as possible.

• Participation process including design education

In a collaborative design that includes continuously finding and organizing participants from the beginning, it is important not to produce only creative results. Contrariwise, it is critical to jointly recognize and agree on the problems of the current space, improvements needed, and aspects to be considered for users in the long term.

In Korea, public architecture planning has been largely recognized as the domain of administrators and experts, and there is little design education on architecture and urban environments in schools. Therefore, it is necessary to educate the participants on how to collaborate and the reason for participation. This education is not just a process to inform and acquire information related to a project, but also to discuss the direction of improvement of school facilities and help users discover practical elements to change the space.

• Division of the roles of administrators and experts (facilitator and architect)

The administration planned the direction of participatory planning and selected the method with experts, divided into facilitators and architects according to their roles. The facilitator was selected before the architect, chose the user participation method for the reconstruction of the school space, and oversaw the entire process. The architect participated in the discussions, such as a workshop to specify the methods of collecting opinions, and was responsible for interpreting and applying the opinions of various users in a practical design. For training, a separate external expert was temporarily hired.

In most public architecture projects in Korea, the roles of experts are not divided as in this project. For large-scale development and regeneration projects or in some cities, a master planner is assigned. Furthermore, individual projects have a project manager who acts as an advisor when necessary. However, it is rare to have a separate budget for the roles of the facilitator and architect, except for recent school space projects.

In 2021, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced the Green Smart Future School Project to renovate 2835 old schools nationwide between 2021 and 2025 [49]. This project requested that the roles of experts be subdivided into pre-planners, space, and education planners. The pre-planner acts as a facilitator and the space planner refers to the architect. These roles can be duplicated, and if the business department wants to divide the roles of experts in the project, a master planner must be selected separately [50] (p. 9).

4.2. Implications of This Study

This study is different from other case studies on participatory planning. First of all, in Korea, as explained in the research background, most of the focus has been on applying or supplementing methodologies through overseas cases, and making improvements based on comparative studies. In particular, it has been emphasized that only users participated in various ways, and discussion on what was actually discussed and reflected in the design process through participation was insufficient. Through user participation the results of this study reveal that teachers and students had requirements related to safety and green environment. Accordingly, it was emphasized that the school space improvement project is not only about making the facilities clean, but also about creating an environment that improves the quality of life of users.

Above all, this study emphasizes that the implementation of participatory planning in Korea is not just a matter of method, but an issue that emerges according to the difference in conditions. Participation conditions in Korea are different from those in the United Kingdom or the United States, where there are sufficient voluntary participants. When the administration promotes a project, it starts with the conditions of newly seeking and organizing participants. There have been studies on the importance and methodology of participatory planning, but there have been few discussions of the differences in conditions and implementation characteristics. The perspective and results of the analysis of this study can have not only these theoretical effects, but also practical effects in countries with similar conditions in Asia, including Korea.

Apart from this case, empirical studies on the participatory planning process implemented in Asian countries are lacking. Case studies similar to this study in which the public cooperation process was conducted under the condition of completely new exploration and organization in the absence of voluntary participants need to be further expanded, and a comparative analysis should be performed in the future.

5. Conclusions

This study focuses on the collaborative design process through user participation, regarded as a strategy to improve the public educational environment, and discusses its methods. Specifically, it identifies the conditions for participation and the characteristics of practice in Korea. Based on the strategies and characteristics discussed, the main points to be considered regarding user participation under similar conditions in the future are as follows.

After finding and organizing the participating users in the beginning, the organized group of participants had to be newly formed or partially reorganized in the next program. Even if the initial group has a high level of project understanding, collaboration, and design, several stakeholders must participate in various ways in the subsequent process. Moreover, different groups can participate in each program, but because users need to know different opinions, it is also necessary to include a process of discussing and agreeing together.

Specifically, in this user collaboration design process, it is necessary to divide the roles of experts into planning, generalization, and design realization. If a participatory process is necessary regarding the final decision, experts can reorganize the group around the main participants. Otherwise, they will have to create as many diverse groups as possible and collect various opinions on the necessary parts. In the latter case, since participants cannot discuss and decide on the design like experts, the presence of experts to educate participants, create a forum for discussion, and select different creative opinions is paramount.

Moreover, as discussed by some researchers, in designing collaboration with users, participation does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes [51]. Importantly, participation in a design process with many variables is different from processes such as elections, and the final decision is not necessarily decided by a majority vote.

While discussions on improving the educational environment actively continue, this study is meaningful in showing practical strategies and characteristics under the conditions of finding and organizing new participants who are unfamiliar with design participation in public projects.

However, the failure of full generalizability is a limitation of this study. Since there have not been many case analysis studies of the implementation of user participation under these conditions in Korea, methodological refinement and generalization based on the analysis results will need to be made through additional research. In particular, the search for and detailed organization of various participants revealed through this study can be appropriately used during a pandemic situation where ideal consultations in which everyone gathers are impossible.