Sustainability 2016, 8, x doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.comjournal sustainability [629112]

Sustainability 2016, 8, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/ sustainability
Article for a Special Issue: Climate Resilient Urban Development 1
Assessing the Strategies for Urban Climate Change 2
Adaptation : The Case of Six Metropolitan Cities in 3
South Korea 4
5
Jae-Seung Lee 1,* and Jeong Won Kim 2 6
1 Green School (Graduate School of Ene rgy and Environment) and Division of International Studies, Korea 7
University, 145 Anam -ro, Seongbuk -gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea; [anonimizat] 8
2 Green School (Graduate School of Energy and Environment), Korea University, 145 Anam -ro, Seongbuk – 9
gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea; [anonimizat] 10
* Correspondence: jaselee @korea.ac.kr; Tel.: +82 -2-3290 -2419 11
Academic Editor: name 12
Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date 13
Abstract: With a growing interest in climate change adaptation, an in creasing number of national 14
and local governments began to develop various adaptation strategies. This study assesses the 15
strategies for urban climate change adaptation by municipal governments in South Korea. The 16
adaptation plans and budget expenditures of six metropolitan cities in South Korea were compared 17
based on Implementation Plan for Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (IPCCAS) 2012 -2016 and 18
annual expenditure reports of each city. The result showed that the actual implementation of 19
various adaptatio n programs of the South Korean metropolitan cities brought varied outcomes vis – 20
à-vis the original plans in terms of the level of overall expenditure and sector -specific expenditure. 21
The following findings were drawn from the analysis: First, the highest ad aptation priority was put 22
in disaster/infrastructure, water management and health sector in most cases. Second, the actual 23
expenditure on climate change adaptation programs was smaller than planned budget in the 24
IPCCAS. Third, Seoul, Daegu, Daejeon and Inc heon showed a close matching between planning and 25
implementation, while Busan and Ulsan show a gap between the two. Fourth, it would be difficult 26
to assert that the adaptation programs of South Korea metropolitan cities have been well -tailored to 27
meet each specific case. 28
Keywords: climate change adaptation ; climate -resilient city ; metropolitan city; IPPCCAS: South 29
Korea 30
31
1. Introduction 32
The global urban population had grown from 2.3 billion in 1990 to about 4 billion in 2016. They 33
respectively account for 43% and 54.5 % of the world’s population, and it is projected that 60 percent 34
of the world’s population will dwell in urban areas by 2030 [1,2]. Such a rapid urbanization has made 35
cities face various social and environmental problems including insufficient housing, traffic 36
congestion, increas ing crime rates, environmental pollution , and inadequate sanitation services [3-7]. 37
In addition to the traditional challenges, the response to climate change has emerged as a n important 38
task that municipal governments should carry out . Since anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) 39
emissions originat ing from cities reach as high as 70 % of global GHG emissions [8], cities can play a 40

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 27
significant role in climate change mitigation by reducing fossil fuel consumption and promoting low- 41
carbon economy . Furthermore, cities themselves are under threat from climate chan ge such as sea – 42
level rise and more frequent extreme weather events and natural disaster s having negative effects on 43
human health , water availability , and so on. [9-11]. The number of n atural disasters worldwide has 44
quadrupled to around 400 a year since 197 5 [12], and economic loss resulting from the natural 45
disasters between 2005 and 2014 , US$ 1.5 trillion, increased 10 times over the previous decade [13]. 46
In 2014, 87 % of di sasters were climate -related [2] . Although disasters can be a serious threat to both 47
urban and rural areas, cities are particularly vulnerable due to the high density of population as well 48
as concentrated infrastructure and assets [9, 14-16]. Since i t is expected that climate change will raise 49
the risk of disasters and increase loss [17], cities have to find ways to deal with the climate hazards. 50
In this regard , the concept of climate -resilient city has increasingly received attention from 51
municipal governm ents. Resilience was the term originally used by physical scientists to indicate 52
characteristics of a spring and refer to resistance of materials to external shocks [18] ( p. 300) . It was 53
introduced in ecology and used to describe the capacity of a system t o maintain its functions and 54
controls against disturbance [19] ( p.220) . On the basis of such an ecological interpretation , urban 55
resilience is commonly defined as the ability of a system, a community, and a society within a city to 56
resist, absorb, survive, adapt, and recover from stresses and shocks they are exposed to [6,19 -21]. The 57
concept of resilience has recently been used in diverse areas including disaster management, urban 58
security and economic growth [19]. Since climate change tend s to do harm to c ities through increase 59
in natural disasters and extreme weather events, climate -resilient city have many common features 60
with disaster -resilient city . According to Wamsler et al. (2013), a disaster -resilient city is one that 61
decrease not only actual hazard s, but also susceptibility of individuals, communities and institutions 62
to the hazards, and formalize disaster recovery mechanisms [11]. Applying the definition of general 63
urban resilience and disaster -resilience, a climate -resilient city can be described as a city having the 64
capacity to relieve and recover from climate -related shocks and stresses and reduce the vulnerability 65
to climate change [21]. 66
In the climate change policy context, efforts to build climate -resilience can be understood as 67
climate change adapt ation strategies . IPCC (2014) explains that “adaptation is the process of 68
adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects.” [22] (p. 118). It is a more ambitious form of 69
climate -resilience including alternative water supply, cooling services , flood protection, green 70
infrastructure, and emergency preparedness mechanisms [23-25]. The growing realization that 71
mitigation alone cannot be an effective response to climate change has allowed adaptat ion policy to 72
come on the scene [26-28]. Consequentl y, more and more national and local governments around the 73
world have developed various adaptation strategies. For OECD countries, the number of countries 74
established specific adaptation policies was only 5 in 2006, but increased to 27 in 2012 [2 9]. Many o f 75
megacities such as New York, London, Mexico City , Seoul and Sydney also have devised adaptatio n 76
policies. 77
Despite an increase d number of adaptation plan s announced by municipal governments , 78
however, the analysis on their actual implementation is rarely f ound. So far, many studies have 79
focused on the establishment of municipal adaptation strategy without assessing of the adaptation 80
performance . Plans are not always implemented. Even though the governments set the adaptation 81
plans to raise climate -resilienc e, they may fail to implement those plans due to many political and 82
financial reasons. Therefore , monitoring the implementation outcomes is important to assess climate – 83
resilience of the city. One of the methods to evaluate the efforts of a city to adapt to climate change is 84
analyzing the financial report for the adaptation measures [10]. 85

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 27
With this background , this study examines the implementation of climate change adaptation 86
strategies of six metropolitan cities (except Gwangju) in South Korea. Since the establishment of 87
National Comprehensive Plan for Climate Change Adaptation in December, 2008 , the South Korean 88
government has announced a series of national -level adaptation plans and encouraged local 89
governments to develop their own adaptation plans. Fram ework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth 90
enacted in 2009 mandates the national government to formulate adaptation strategy and the local 91
governments to establish implementation plan for adaptation strategy in every five years. Based on 92
this provision, South Ko rean government announced National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 93
(NCCAS) 2011 -2015 in 2010, and distributed a Manual for Implementation Plan for Climate Change 94
Adaptation Strategy (IPCCAS) to help local governments devise their own plans. In 2012, all of seven 95
metropolitan governments in South Korea completed establishment of IPCCAS 2012 -2016. After 96
implementation periods of the first plans, the 2nd NCCAS 2016 -2020 and the second IPCCAS 2017 – 97
2021 were set and being implemented. Each IPCCAS contains specific adaption programs that the 98
local government tries to carry out and related budget plan. Based on the first IPCCAS and annual 99
expenditure reports of six metropolitan cities in South Korea, this study identifie s key characteristics 100
of urban climate cha nge adaptation and assesses their implementation. 101
This paper consists of the following sections: the second section introduces diverse options of 102
adaptation strategies of urban climate change adaptation in the previous literatures. The third section 103
explai ns data and methods for the analysis . The fourth section analyzes climate change adaptation 104
plans and expenditure schemes in the six metropolitan cities. This section specifically examines what 105
programs devised for adaptation, how much budget was allocated to those programs, and how much 106
budget was actually spen t in those programs for each city. The conclusion summarizes the key 107
finding of this study and provides implications for future urban adaptation plans. 108
2. Previous Studies on Urban Climate Change Ada ptation 109
2.1. The O ptions for Climate Change Adaptation 110
Climate change adaptation includes both reducing damage and taking advantages resulting 111
from climate change [22, 30]. Since climate affects diverse economic and social sectors including 112
agriculture, forestry, fisheries, housing, transport, and human health [27], adaptation options also 113
cover a wide range of activities across all sectors of a society. In addition to direct actions to reduce 114
climate risks, adaptation options also include capacity buildi ng measures for individuals, 115
communities and organizations [30]. 116
The classification of adaptation options varies. One of the most common way is listing up 117
adaptation options by specific sectors. De Bruin et al. (2009) suggests 96 adaptation options of 7 118
sectors (agriculture, nature, water, energy and transport, housing and infrastructure, health, and 119
recreation and tourism ) [31]. Moser and Satterthwaite (2008) divided the adaptation options into 4 120
categories (protection, pre -disaster damage limitation, imm ediate post -disaster responses, and 121
rebuilding ) [32] and the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) 4 resilient 122
elements (infrastructure systems, ecosystems, agent capacities, and institutions ) [33]. IPCC sorted 123
numerous adaptation options into 3 categories (structural/physical, social, and institutional) and 10 124
sub-categories (engineered and built environment, technological, ecosystem -based, services, 125
educational, informational, behavioral, economic, laws and regulations, and government po licies and 126
programs) [3 4], and UKCIP suggested adaptation options according to 2 categories (building 127
adaptive capacity and delivering adaptation actions) and 7 sub -categories (creating information, 128
supportive social structure, supportive governance, accep ting the impacts and bearing losses, 129

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 27
preventing effects or reducing risks, offsetting losses by spreading or sharing risks or losses, 130
exploring positive opportunities) [3 5]. The examples of suggested adaptation options are listed in 131
Table 1. 132
Table 1. Exam ples of climate change adaptation options 133
Source Category Examples of adaptation options
de Bruin et
al. (2009) Agriculture  Adjusting crop rotation schems and planting dates
 Floating greenhouses
Nature  Establishment and management of protected areas
 Artificial translocation of plant and animal
Water  Risk based allocation policy
 Regional water system/Improving river capacity
Energy & transport  Modes of transport /more intelligent infrastructure
 Buildings less need for air -conditioning/heating
Housin g & infrastructure  Sufficient cooling capacity / Revision of sewer system
Health  Measures for preventing climate related diseases
Recreation & tourism  Design infrastructure for recreation and tourism
Moser &
Satterthwaite
(2008) Protection  Adjusting of ficial standards for building and land use
 Risk-reduction investment and actions
Pre-disaster damage limitation  Spaces with services where people can move temporarily
 Disaster early -warning system
Immediate post -disaster responses  Rapid repairs to key infrastructure and services
 Protection of physical capital to prevent further erosion
Rebuilding  Rebuilding infrastructure to more resilient standards
Tyler &
Moench
(2012) Infrastructure systems  Flood monitoring and early warning systems
 Rainwater harv esting
Ecosystems  Mangrove restoration and protection
 Watershed planning and forest protection
Agent capacities  Building awareness of climate risks
 Training communities in disaster risk management
Institutions  Water demand management
 Local governmen t coordination and technical support
IPCC (2014) Structural/
physical Engineered and built
environment  Sea walls and coastal protection structures
 Storm and waste water management
Technological  New crop and animal varieties
 Water saving technologies
Ecosystem -based  Ecological restoration
 Community -based natural resource management
Services  Social safety nets and social protection
 Essential public health services
Social Educational  Awareness raising and integrating into education
Informational  Hazard and vulnerability mapping
 Early warning and response system
Behavioral  Household preparation and evacuating planning
Institutional Economic  Insurance/catastrophe bonds
 Payments for ecosystem services
Laws and regulations  Building standards /land zoning laws
Government policies
and programs  National and regional adaptation plans
 Disaster planning and preparedness
UKCIP
(2008) Building
adaptive
capacity Creating information  Research/data collection/awareness raising
Supportive social
structure  Working in partnerships/organizational development
Supportive governance  Regulation/legislation/guidance

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27
Delivering
adaptation
actions Offsetting losses by
spreading or sharing  Insurance
 Sharing costs of response
Preventing effects or
reduci ng risks  Changing use or location
 Building resilience
Exploiting
opportunities  New species
 Devloping previously limited activities
Accepting the impacts
and bearing loss  Managing retreat from sea -level rise
Source: [31-35] 134
2.2. Climate Change Adapta tion of Cities 135
Climate change mitigation has been a dominant agenda in climate change response of the cities. 136
Broto and Bulkeley (2013) reported only 12% of 627 mitigation and adaptation practices of 100 global 137
cities were adaptation programs [23], and Reckien et al. (2014) showed only 28% of 200 European 138
cities ha d adaptation plans whil e 65% of the cities set mitigation plans [16]. Nevertheless, various 139
adaptation strategies have been increasingly developed by national and local governments around 140
the worl d. A series of studies began to pick up the substance and consequence of urban climate 141
adaptation [23,28, 29,36]. 142
The exploration and comparison of adaptation strategies of multiple cities are the most prevalent 143
type of study. Broto and Bulkeley (2013) exam ined climate change policies of 100 global cities , and 144
argued that adaptation programs were found most frequently in Oceania and least frequently in 145
Europe [23]. The most popular a daptation options and sectors vary among the studies. Preston et al. 146
(2011) explored 507 adaptation options identified in 57 adaptation plans of Australia, the United 147
Kingdom and the United States and found capacity building programs accounted for 72% of total 148
adaption option s, which outweighs delivering specific vulnerability red uction programs [28]. 149
Lesnikowski et al. (2014) reviewed 4,104 adaptation initiatives communicated to the UNFCCC, and 150
the largest number of initiatives were related to infrastructure, technology and innovation in 151
environment, water and agricultural sectors [37]. Wamsler et al. (2013) compared adaptation options 152
of developed countries and developing countries through meta -evaluation of cross -country studies . 153
[11]. 154
Some studies found enabling factors of successful adoption and implementation of adaptation 155
policies of municipal governments [14,24,36,38]. Carmin et al. (2009) noted internal motivation such 156
as the need to protect property and lives from natural disasters was a strong driver for Durban and 157
Quito to develop adaptation planning far earlier than othe r cities [38]. In California, large population, 158
high household income a nd strong support from local leaders and the public were associated with 159
adoption of local climate change adaptation policies [36]. Active participation of stakeholders was 160
also a key s uccess factor as shown in the cases of London and New York [14] . Commitment of local 161
leaders, municipal expenditures per capita, and awareness of climate change had a positive 162
association with engagement in adaptation planning [24]. On the other hand, it was pointed out that 163
difficulties in negotiation and coordination among various stakeholders, political change, lack of 164
awareness , uncertainty and complacency could be obstacles that hinder ed the adoption of climate 165
change adaptation policies [39,40]. 166
One o f recent studies provides more specific results about adaptation efforts of cities by 167
analyzing the disbursement of climate change adaptation of ten megacities – London, Paris, New 168
York, Mexico City, São Paulo, Beijing, Mumbai, Jakarta, Lagos and Addis Aba ba. The result shows 169
that expenditure on adaptation accounts for as high as 0.33% of a city’s gross domestic product. While 170

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 27
the cities in developed countries spend more money on energy and water, the cities in developing 171
countries tend to focus on adaptati on options for health and agriculture sector [10]. 172
Previous s tudies on urban climate change adaption also showed some limitations. Most of 173
studies concentrate on establishment of adaptation policy itself rather than its actual implementation. 174
The studies report which adaptation options are included in the adaptation plans of cities and what 175
leads or impedes municipal governments to adopt adaptation strategy. An adoption of adaptation 176
policy is , in fact, the beginning of adaptation efforts of cities but not an end of them . Therefore, it is 177
necessary to monitor if municipal governments implement the policy according to their plans and 178
evaluate their adaptation performance to effectively enhance climate -resilience of cities . Georgeson 179
et al. (2016) analyzed actual expenditure of cities on climate change adaptation, but it focuses on only 180
one fiscal year and does not inform whether the expenditure was originated from the budget plan. 181
Considering such limitations of previous studies, this study tries to assess wh ether cities have been 182
implementing the climate change adaptation policy according to their original plans. 183
3. Data and Methods 184
3.1. Data 185
The purpose of this study is comparing urban climate adaptation plans and their 186
implementation in South Korea. T he dat a on the adaptation planning and implementation of each 187
city is required. For adaptation planning data, IPCCAS of six metropolitan cities (Seoul, Busan, Daegu, 188
Daejeon, Incheon and Ulsan) [41-46] were collected. In South Korea, each local government has to 189
establish its own IPCCAS in every five years as mandated by Framework Act on Low Carbon Green 190
Growth enacted in 2009 . All of 7 metropolitan governments in South Korea completed the 191
establishment of IPCCAS 2012 -2016 in 2012 as a first step and announced the 2nd IPCCAS 2017 -2021 192
in 2017. O ther smaller local governments also have developed their IPCCAS. In this study, the 193
adaptation efforts of municipal governments are identified and assessed based on IPCCAS 2012 -2016 194
since the second IPCCAS 2017 -2021 is stil l in the initial stage of implementation . Out of seven 195
metropolitan cities, Gwangju is excluded for the consistency of analysis. Whereas the other six cities 196
contain annual budget plan for adaptation strategies, Gwangju provides only total budget for 5 yea rs. 197
For implementation data, this study measures the adaptation efforts of municipal governments based 198
on their financial response. Expenditure reports for fiscal year 2012 -2016 of each city [47 -76] are used 199
to count actual expenditure on adaptation progra ms suggested in IPCCAS. 200
3.2. Methods 201
The following approaches are applied to assess the adaptation efforts of six metropolitan cities. 202
First, all adaption programs stated in IPCCAS are identified and re -categorized using standardized 203
typology . Since each c ity used its own criteria to categorize adaptation programs, it is difficult to 204
directly compare sector -specific budget plans and expenditure among the cities. For instance, flood 205
early -warning system was included in disaster management sector of Seoul’s I PCCAS, but in water 206
management sector of Busan’s IPCCAS. Also, Busan put ‘creating urban forests’ into forest section 207
while Daegu included it in health sector. Furthermore, Ulsan presented unique criteria – healthy and 208
safe city, water -circulating eco city , and climate -friendly city whereas the other cities retained 209
traditional criteria based on sectors such as health, disaster, agriculture, forest, and so on. In order to 210
resolve inconsistent classification, the adaptation programs stated in IPCCAS are clas sified in 211
accordance with the criteria used in NCCAS 2011 -2015. NCCAS 2011 -2015 presents 29 strategies and 212
87 specific plans under 10 sectors – health, disaster/infrastructure, agriculture, forest, ocean/fisheries, 213

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 27
water management, ecosystem, climate chan ge monitoring/projection, adaptation industry/energy, 214
and education/promotion/international cooperation as shown in Table 2 [77]. All adaptation 215
programs of six cities are classified according to the specific plans of NCCAS 2011 -2015. 216
217
218
Table 2. National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 201 1-2015 of South Korea 219
Sector Strategy Specific plan
Health 1) H eat wave and UV  Health impact assessment resulting from heat wave
and UV and monitoring system
 Reducing damages by heat wave and UV
2) Climate hazards  Health impact assessment resulting from climate
hazards, monitoring system, and reduction
3) Infectious diseases  Health impact assessment resulting from ecosystem
change and monitoring system
 Infectious disease surveillance and management
 R&D for infectou s diseases
4) Air pollution and
chemicals  Health impact assessment resulting from air pollution
and monitoring system
 Reducing damages by air pollution
 Health impact assessment resulting from movement
of chemicals and monitoring system
5) Allergies (as thma,
rhinitis, atopy)  Managing allergenic environmental factors
 Preventing and managing allergies
Disaster /
Infrastructure 1) Disaster prevention
system  Risk assessment of natural disasters caused by climate
change
 Strengthening standards and institution s
 Disaster insurance
2) Infrastructure for disaster
prevention  Disaster prevention programs for areas at high risk
 Early -warning and r esponse system to disasters
 Post -disaster recovery to prevent recurrent damages
 Installation of rainwater runoff reduct ion facilities
 Stable management and disaster prevention system of
waste treatment facilities
 R&D for climate control
 Improvement of sewerage system
3) Infrastructure for society  Identification of vulnerable areas to climate change
and adaptation plan fo r those areas
 Land use plans considering climate change
 Improving adaptation capacity of cities
 Building climate -resilient, disaster -preventive cities
Agriculture 1) Climate -friendly
agriculture and animal
husbandry  Crop yield estimation and prediction
 Climate -adaptive species and new cultivars
 Climate -adaptive cultivation techniques
 Improvement and management of livestock
 Forage supply
 Efficient use and saving of agricultural water
 Stable supply of agricultural water
2) Preventing damages  Vulnerability assessment

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 27
 Technology development to relieve climate hazards
 Agricultural infrastructure to prevent damage by
storm and flood
 Disease and insect pest control system
 Forecast of foreign disease and insect pest
 Prevention of animal diseases
Forest 1) Improv ing resilience and
function of forests  Protecting plant species vulnerable to climate change
 Forest for watershed conservation
2) Increasing forest
productivity  Impact and vulnerability assessment of forestry
 Increasing forest productivity
3) Preventin g damages of
forest  Vulnerability assessment of forest disasters
 Prevention and alleviation of forester disaster
 Disease and insect pest control system
 Climate -adaptive forest management
Sector Strategy Specific plan
Ocean/
Fisheries 1) Plans for coastal areas  Vulnerability assessment of coastal areas to sea -level
rise
 Scientific management system to predict and respond
to change in external force
 Coastal topography change and adaptation plan
2) Increasing productivity of
fisheries  Management of fishing condition of littoral sea and
fishery resources
 Securing future fishery resources
 Enhancing observation and management of coastal
fisheries
3) Preventing damages of
fisheries  Management of infectious disease of marine creatures
 Reducing damages by ocean acidification
 Allieviating fishery disasters
Water
management 1) Impact and vulnerability
assessment  Strengthening water management monitoring
 Impact and vulnerability assessment
2) Flood and drought
prevention  Infrastructure for flood prevention
 Deman d management through efficient water use
 Stable wate resources
 Developing alternative water sources
 Maximizing adaptation capacity of rivers
 Export of water management technologies
3) Management of water
quality and aquatic
ecosystem  Management of water quality
 Restoration of aquatic ecosystem
Ecosystem 1) Monitoring and
vulnerability assessment  Monitoring ecosystem and vulnerable species
 Impact and vulnerability assessment
2) Adaptation plan  Conservation of biodiversity
 Restoration of ecological axis
 Management system for foreign species
 Governance for ecosystem management and
promotion
Climate
change
monitoring/
projection 1) Monitoring climate
change  3-dimensional observation system
 Monitoring local climate
2) Producing projection data  Standardize d national climate change scenario
 Producing regional climate and extreme climate data

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27
3) Korea -specific projection
model  Global climate change projection model
 Regional climate model for Korea Peninsula
4) Application system of
projection/monitoring d ata  Technology development for Early-warning of
extreme climate
 Integrated monitoring of climate and air pollution
 Services to provide projection/monitoring data
Adaptation
industry/
Energy 1) Impact and vulnerability
assessment  Impact and vulnerability a ssessment
2) Risk management and
taking an opportunity  Establishment of adaptation plan by industry
 Developing and supporting new/promising industries
 Stable energy supply
Education/
Promotion/
International
cooperation 1) Education and promotion  Educat ion and promotion to raise awareness
 Infrastructure for adaptation capacity building
2) International cooperation  International cooperation for adaptation
Source: [77] 220
Planned budget and actual expenditure on adaptation programs are estimated based on I PCCAS 221
and annual expenditure reports of six cities . The budget data can be acquired from the IPCCAS. 222
However, there is no official data that shows exact amount of the governments’ spend ing on climate 223
change adaptation programs. A nnual reports also provide expenditure of the departments of the 224
municipal government s by specific programs that the department undertook for the fiscal year. In 225
order to estimate the spending on adaptation, the programs sharing common features with the 226
IPCCAS are selected from the annual reports, and the expenses of those programs are aggregated. In 227
addition , the expenditure on programs whic h are not included in the city -level IPCCAS, but included 228
in other cities’ IPCCAS and NCCAS was also calculated. After this adjustment process, budget plans 229
and actual expenditure are compared. 230
A few limitation s might be noted. First, some programs which do not need money are excluded 231
in evaluation since the expenditure reports only include programs in which the budget was invested. 232
For example, modification of rules and regulations are included in IPCCAS, but most of them are 233
excluded in the expenditure reports and the cities did not allocated budget to these objectives because 234
they are usual activities of the municipal governments requiring no d irect cost . Instead, this study 235
focuses on comparison between planned budget and actual expenditure on adaptation programs. 236
Second, the expenditure on climate change adaptation programs may be overestimated. Adaptation 237
programs are not undertaken in the na me of climate change, and often combined with existing 238
development, disaster management and welfare programs [23]. For instance, most of cities present 239
river maintenance to adapt to climate change and visiting health services for people who are 240
vulnerable to heat wave in the IPCCAS. However, the expenditure reports show the spending on 241
general river maintenance and visiting health services since they are often not implemented with the 242
only purpose of climate change adaptation . Nevertheless, it is not expect ed to hamper the validity of 243
the results since the budget in the IPCCAS also does not seem to be confined to climate -specific 244
programs. 245
4. Analysis 246
4.1. Climate Change Adaptation Plans of Six Metropolitan Cities 247

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27
Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, was the first city that established the IPCCAS. It 248
announced the First IPCCAS in December, 2011, and the other metropolitan cities did it in February, 249
2012 . They presented specific adaptation programs in various sectors and annual budget plan to 250
implement th ose programs in IPCCAS . According to IPCCAS 2012 -2016 of six cities, the cities 251
planned to spend 1 0,425 billion KRW (approximately US$ 9.9 billion) on more than 900 adaptation 252
programs for five years. The cities tended to put the highest priority in disast er/infrastructure, water 253
management and health sector. They made plans to spend 3,592 billion KRW on 161 programs to 254
prevent and respond to disasters, 2,333 billion KRW on 171 programs to manage water quantity and 255
quality, and 1, 901 billion KRW on 158 prog rams to prevent and manage diseases caused by climate 256
change (Figure 1) . More budget was allocated to disaster/infrastructure sector than water 257
management in spite of less number of programs because the programs of disaster/infrastructure 258
sector included high-cost projects such as maintenance and expansion of drain pipes and construction 259
of waste treatment facilities. 260
The overall climate change adaptation plans of six cities show a similar tendency to prior 261
findings that the most prevailing adaptation meas ures are related to water management [11], and 262
many adaptation programs are similar to disaster management programs [23,78]. On the other hand, 263
they have a unique characteristic to pay relatively high attention to health and adaptation industry 264
than other cities covered in previous studies. This is more apparent at the specific plan level. Table 3 265
presents top five specific plans to have respectively the biggest number of programs and budget. In 266
terms of the number of programs, the measures to “reduce damag es by heat wave and UV ” (77 267
programs) are most frequent ly found followed by “develop ment of new and promising industries ” 268
(44 programs) and the water quality management (37 programs). In terms of budget, the biggest 269
budget was planned to be executed for “improvement of sewerage system ” (2,634 billion KRW), 270
followed by “reducing damages by heat wave and UV ” (1,721 billion KRW) and “development of 271
new and promising industries ” (1,140 billion KRW). It may be attributed to the typology and the 272
background of IPC CAS 2012 -2016. First, according to the NCCAS 2011 -2015, activities to increase 273
urban green areas were included in health sector (“reducing damages by heat wave and UV” category ) 274
instead of forest sector . It considers increasing urban green areas as a key measure to mitigate urban 275
heat island effect s and provide a shade shelter . Municipal governments have been conducting many 276
projects to increase green spaces not only to protect citizens’ health, but also to improve urban 277
landscapes . In this sense, it is nat ural that health sector has the large number of programs and the big 278
portion of budget. Second, most of IPCCAS 2012 -2016 was prepared with reference to the NCCAS 279
2011 -2015 , which was established based on Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth. Because 280
the Korean government regarded green growth model as a new growth engine of the country, it 281
emphasized that the Korean economy should turn the risk climate change management into a new 282
opportunity for economic growth . Consequently, the government promoted in dustries related with 283
climate change which became a key element of climate change adaptation strategy. 284
285

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 27

Figure 1. The number of adaptation programs and budget plan for 2012 -2016 286
Table 3. Top 5 specific plans of six cities (plan) 287
Category Rank Sector Specific plan Programs/
Budget
The
number
of
programs 1 Health Reducing damages by heat wave and UV 77
2 Adaptation
industry/Energy Developing and supporting
new/promising industries 44
3 Water management Management of water quality 37
4 Disaster/Inf rastructure Early -warning and r esponse system to
disasters 36
5 Disaster/Infrastructure Improvement of sewerage system 32
Budget
(billion
KRW) 1 Disaster/Infrastructure Improvement of sewerage system 2,634
2 Health Reducing damages by heat wave and UV 1,721
3 Adaptation
industry/Energy Developing and supporting
new/promising industries 1,140
4 Water management Developing alternative water sources 1,013
5 Water management Management of water quality 509
The six cities set the plan that 1,448 bill ion KRW would be invested in adaptation programs in 288
2012 and the budget would be expanded to 2,666 billion KRW in 2016 (Figure 2). The budget for 289
adaptation programs had increase d every year except between 2014 and 2015. The exception was 290
mainly due to the water management sector which showed a steep budget hike in 2014 and 2016 . 291
Incheon sharply increased budget for several river maintenance projects in 2014 and Ulsan allocated 292
big budget for projects to reuse sewage and waste water in 2016. The big rise of the health sector 293
budget between 2015 and 2016 came from Ulsan’s large investment plan for urban parks and green 294
spaces. 295
296

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27

Figure 2. Annual budget plan for adaptation programs 297
At the city level, Seoul allocated the largest budget, 3,619 billion KRW, to 155 climate change 298
adaption programs. Next, Daegu planned to invest 1,997 billion KRW to 235 programs. Daegu 299
developed the biggest number of programs among six cities. Following that, Busan, Ulsan and 300
Daejeon respectively presented that they would spen d 1,766 billion KRW on 211 programs, 1,587 301
billion KRW on 118 programs, and 924 billion KRW on 125 programs. Incheon showed the smallest 302
budget (529 billion KRW) and the programs (63 programs) (Figure 3) . 303
304

(a) (b)

Figure 3. The number of adaptatio n programs and budget plan for 2012 -2016 of each city: (a) the 305
number of programs; (b) budget plan 306
Figure 3 shows the number of programs and planned budget by sector of each city. In terms of 307
the number of programs, adaptation efforts seem to have comparat ively balanced distribution among 308
sectors, but some exceptions were found. First, Daegu is the only city that presented programs for 309
climate change monitoring and projection. Since Korean cities tend to rely on climate data and climate 310
change scenarios pro vided by national government, the other cities did not express their willingness 311
to undertake programs for this sector. However, Daegu planned to develop systems to monitor urban 312
microclimate and produce city -specific climate data and climate scenarios. Se cond, coastal cities – 313
Busan, Incheon and Ulsan prepared programs for ocean/fisheries sector whereas inland cities – Seoul, 314
Daegu and Daejeon presented no such programs. Third, Seoul did not include any programs for 315

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27
adaptation industry/energy and education /promotion/international cooperation sector despite its 316
largest budget plan. One guessable explanation is that Seoul did not consider the educational and 317
promotional programs as adaptation options at the time of establishment of IPCCAS since it finished 318
developing IPCCAS before the national government distributed the writing manual of IPCCAS. 319
The budget plan shows the sectors which appear to predominate are different among the case 320
cities. The cities can be divided into four groups. First, the majority of c ities paid attention to 321
disaster/infrastructure and water management sector as overall tendency presented. Daegu, Daejeon 322
and Incheon respectively allocated 8 1.5%, 75 .4% and 6 3.5% of their total budget for adaptation 323
programs to the two sectors. Second, Seoul made a plan to invest overwhelming budget , 2,023 billion 324
KRW out of 3,619 billion KRW (5 5.9%), in disaster/infrastructure sector only . It particularly had 325
strong interests in expanding sewer capacity and installing rainwater detention facilities to pre vent 326
flood damage. Third , Busan showed a more interest in climate change industry/energy sector than 327
the other cities. It planned to spend 875 billion KRW out of 1,766 billion KRW (49.5%) on nurturing 328
marine bio industry, seawater desalination and Green Po rt industry, and developing renewable 329
energy projects including construction of off-shore wind farm s and technology development of 330
hydrogen production and storage. By contrast, the other cities did not include renewable energy 331
projects in adaptation progra ms since they are usually regarded as mitigation efforts. Finally, Ulsan 332
distribute the budget relatively evenly to diverse sectors compared to the other cities. More detailed 333
information about budget allocation by programs of each city is presented in the appendix. 334
4.2. Actual Climate Change Adaptation implementation of Six Metropolitan Cities 335
From 2012 to 2016, the six metropolitan governments spent 7,988 billion KRW (approximately 336
US$ 7.6 billion) on climate change adaptation programs , which fell short o f planned budget . The cities 337
spent more money than budget plan in 2012, but they spent less money from 2013 to 2016 (Figure 4a) . 338
At the city level, all cities except for Incheon did not executed the budget for adaptation programs as 339
they planned in the IPC CAS (Figure 4b). 340
341

(a) (b)
Figure 4. The comparison between planned budget and actual expenditure on climate change 342
adaptation programs for 2012 -2016 : (a) by year ; (b) by city 343
Figure 5 shows the breakdown of expenditure on adaptation programs by sect or. The sector 344
where the biggest amount of money was spent was disaster/infrastructure (3,870 billion KRW, 48.4%), 345
followed by health (1,559 billion KRW, 19.5%) and water management (961 billion KRW, 12.0%). 346
These three sectors were also top three sectors in the planning stag e. However, the expenditure on 347
water management and health sector was smaller than budget plan, 2,333 billion KRW and 1,901 348

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27
billion KRW while the expenditure on disaster/infrastructure sector exceeded the planned budget, 349
3,592 billion K RW. Consequently, about half of total expenditure on adaptation efforts was 350
concentrated on programs to pre vent and respond to disasters. In a ddition to disaster/infrastructure 351
sector, the municipal governments of the six cities spent more money than budge t plan on agriculture 352
and ocean/fisheries sector. Originally the governments set the plan to spend 230 billion KRW in 353
agriculture and 160 billion KRW in ocean/fisheries, but 306 billion KRW and 257 billion KRW Quite 354
similar amount of money was spent on eco system sector, and the planned budget was not completely 355
consumed in the other sectors. 356
357

(a) (b)
Figure 5. The expenditure on climate change adaptation programs for 2012 -2016 : (a) the expenditure 358
by sector ; (b) comparison between budget plan and actual expenditure by sector 359
In the disaster/infrastructure sector, particularly, a significant amount of money was invested in 360
programs to improve sewerage system including expansion of sewer capacity and installation of 361
rainwater detention facilities to prevent flood damage (1,514 billion KRW), to manage waste 362
treatment facilities with safety (1,042 billion KRW), and to protect areas prone to disasters such as 363
low-lying ground and slopes (541 billion KRW) as shown in Table 4 . Besides, the six cities showe d 364
heavy spending on programs to reduce damages by heat wave and UV (1,001 billion KRW) and 365
damages by air pollution (32billion KRW) in health sector. Among these top five plans, only two 366
plans – improvement of sewerage system and reducing damage by heat wa ve and UV , had a 367
sufficient budget in the IPCCAS. More detailed information about expenditure by programs of each 368
city is presented in the appendix. 369
370
Table 4. Top 5 specific plans of six cities (implementation) 371
Rank Sector Specific plan Expenditure
(billio n KRW)
1 Disaster/Infrastructure Improvement of sewerage system 1,514
2 Disaster/Infrastructure Stable management and disaster prevention
system of waste treatment facilities 1,042
3 Health Reducing damages by heat wave and UV 1,001

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27
4 Disaster/Infrastr ucture Disaster prevention programs for areas at
high risk 541
5 Health Reducing damages by air pollution 32
372
373
374
(unit: million KRW)
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 27

Figure 6. Annual budget and expenditure by sector of each city: (a) 6 cities; (b) Seoul; (c) Busan; (d) 375
Daegu; (e) Daejeon; (f) Incheon; (g) Ulsan 376
The phenomenon that the expenditure exceeds the budget in some sectors is more obvious when 377
the expenditure at the city level is scrutinized. Figure 6 presents p lanned budget and actual 378
expenditure by sector and year of each city. The bar indicates the budget in the IPCCAS and the line 379
shows the actual expenditure estimated from the expenditure reports. Although the overall 380
expenditure patterns of the six cities suggest that only disaster/infrastructure, agriculture, and 381
ocean/fisheries sector show higher spending than planned budget, it is found that individual cities 382
spent more money than budget in additional sectors. For example, Seoul invest more money than 383
budget in health, ecosystem, climate change industry/energy, and education/promotion/international 384
cooperation sector; Busan did in water management ; Daegu did in forest ; Daejeon did in ecosystem 385
and education/promotion/international cooperation; Incheon did in health, forest, climate change 386
industry/energy, and education/promotion/international cooperation; and Ulsan did in forest and 387
education/promotion/international cooperation. 388
The reason of this situation may be related to the different perception of clim ate change 389
adaptation that the municipal governments have. Since adaptation policies overlap with disaster 390
management and other environmental policies, the range of adaptation options may depend on how 391
the climate change adaptation and climate -related risk s are defined . Indeed, some cities did not 392
include certain programs that they have been carrying out in the IPCCAS while the other cities 393
presented those programs as adaptation plans . For instance, Seoul and Incheon did not reco gnize 394
international cooperat ion sector as their adaptation category and did not present any programs for 395
this sector whereas Busan, Daegu and Ulsan set various programs for this sector. According to the 396
NCCAS, international cooperation sector includes programs to hold international c onferences and 397
exhibitions about climate change adaptation, exchang e knowledge with foreign governments and 398
institutions, and participat e in international projects for adaptation. Seoul and Incheon spent a 399
substantial amount of money on this sector since S eoul held the International Council of Local 400
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) World Congress in 2015 and have been operating ICLEI East Asia 401
Secretariat, and Incheon has been also supporting international organizations located in its territory 402
such as Gre en Climate Fund (GCF) . Similarly, Daegu, Daejeon and Incheon spent money on air 403
pollution reduction programs even though they did not present those programs in the IPCCAS as 404
adaptation programs. Expenditure on such ‘unrecognized’ adaptation programs of ind ividual cities 405
ranges from 4.9% to 60.8% of their total expenditure on adaptation programs (Table 5). 406
Table 5. Expenditure not planned in IPCCAS, but actually incurred 407
(unit: million KRW) 408
Seoul Busan Daegu Daejeon Incheon Ulsan
377,055
(10.5%) 222,297
(18.4%) 98,786
(14.6%) 71,110
(13.0%) 659,354
(60.8%) 42,544
(4.9%)
409
4.3. Discussion 410

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 27
The analysis showed that there has been a variance among the South Korean metropolitan cities 411
in implementing the strategies for climate change adaptation as indicated in th e IPCCAS. Figure 7 412
summarizes these outcome. First, Seoul shows almost same shapes between budget (blue dotted line) 413
and expenditure (green solid line), which means it implemented the adaptation programs as it 414
planned. Second, in Daegu and Daejeon, the sha pes of budget and expenditure are similar, but the 415
size of budget is bigger than expenditure. It means that they spent relatively more money on the 416
sectors where the more budget was allocated in the planning stage, but the absolute level of 417
expenditure was lower than the planned budget. Third, in Incheon, the shapes of budget and 418
expenditure are somewhat different, and the size of budget is smaller than expenditure. It spent more 419
money than plans, and the priority was a bit different from the plans. Finally , in Busan and Ulsan, 420
the shapes and sizes of budget and expenditure are different from each other, which suggests they 421
show different implementation of adaptation programs from the original plans. 422
423

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)
(unit: billion KRW )
Figure 7. Comparison between planned budget and actual expenditure by sector of each city: (a) Seoul; 424
(b) Busan; (c) Daegu; (d) Daejeon; (e) Incheon; (f) Ulsan 425
Despite overall tendency to show less expenditure compared to the planned budget, it can be 426
argued that the m etropolitan cities in South Korea have been implementing various climate change 427
adaptation programs. However, it may be too early to answer that they are fully developed for 428
climate change adaptation of individual cities. First of all, most of adaptation programs stated in the 429
IPCCAS came from the NCCAS , and consequently, the programs of cities are quite similar. Climate 430
change adaptation is “highly context -specific because it depends on the climatic, environmental, 431
social, and political con ditions in the target region and sector” [27] (p. 273). Although NCCAS 432
provides a good catalogue of diverse adaptation options, it does not offer specific, locally -customized 433
adaptation programs since it was prepared in the national context. In this sense, the adaptation plans 434
the municipal governments elaborate with the full consideration of local conditions should include 435
numerous, unique programs that NCCAS could not provide. In fact , IPCCAS 2012 -2016 only showed 436
a substantial overlap with the NCCAS . Fur thermore, those programs seem like general programs 437
applicable to most of cities. The examples of such programs include reduction of damage by heavy 438

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27
snow and strong wind, promotion of urban farming, management of street trees, maintenance of 439
mountain trail s, and development of technology to store, process and distribute marine products. 440
The expenditure on such programs were classified into ‘Etc.’ group under each sector in the appendix. 441
Unexecuted budget also reveals an imprudence of municipal governments in development of 442
IPCCAS. According to Table 6 ,343 billion KRW (3.3% of total budget plan) was not spent because the 443
programs to which the budget allocated has not been implemented. It seems to be a small portion of 444
the total budget but the majority of uni mplemented programs are vulnerability assessment and 445
prediction of effects of climate change on various sectors based on advanced monitoring. 446
447
Table 6. Budget planned in IPCCAS, but not actually executed 448
(unit: million KRW) 449
Seoul Busan Daegu Daejeon Inche on Ulsan
3,938
(0.1%) 64,754
(3.7%) 33,299
(1.7%) 12,502
(1.4%) 158,914
(30.4%) 69,589
(4.4%)
450
Finally, a question about the effect of adaptation programs arises. If the adaptation programs do 451
not appropriately reflect the local conditions , are they effe ctive to mitigate adverse effects of climate 452
change and make the cities more climate -resilient? The six cities still spend large amount of money 453
on the post -disaster restoration . For example, Busan spent 1,186 million KRW, 203 million KRW, 8,011 454
million KR W, 1,107 million KRW and 3,003 million KRW from 2012 to 2016 to restore damaged areas 455
and support damaged people by floods and landslides. Ulsan also spent 3,184 million KRW, 1,484 456
million KRW, 6,408 million KRW, 1,698 million KRW and 53,531 million KRW. Considering that 457
implementation of policies and high expenditure on programs do not always guarantee the expected 458
effects, the future research needs to focus on evaluating real effect of adaptation programs on 459
individual cities [28]. Also, if the effects of adaptation programs are not significant, the research to 460
identify why the programs cannot work is important. 461
5. Conclusion 462
Through the analysis of plans and actual expenditure on climate change adaptation of the six 463
metropolitan cities in South Korea , this study found that these cities have implemented various 464
programs to adjust them to climate change, but they showed a different range of gap from original 465
plans stated in the IPCCAS in terms of the level of overall expendit ure and specific expenditure by 466
sector. More specifically, the following is found in the cases. First, most of cities put the highest 467
adaptation priority in disaster/infrastructure, water management and health sector. Second, the 468
actual expenditure on climate change adaptation programs wa s less than planned budget in the 469
IPCCAS. Third, some cities including Seoul, Daegu, Daejeon and Incheon show similar tendency, but 470
some cities including Busan and Ulsan show a gap between planning and implementation. Fourth, it 471
is difficult to assert that current adaptation programs of metropolitan cities in South Korea are well – 472
tailored to each city. 473
This study is the first work to compare adaptation efforts of municipal governments in South 474
Korea between planning and implementation in terms of budget and expenditure. It has an 475
implication to many other local governments preparing establishment of IPCCAS as well as the six 476
metropolitan governments implementing the 2nd IPCCAS. The findings suggest that municipal 477
governments should consider the local conditi ons and develop programs which are necessary to the 478
cities rather than to indiscreetly accept and emulate NCCAS in order to have a consistency between 479

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27
planning and implementation. Furthermore, implementation of adaptation programs itself does not 480
mean the reduction of negative effects and risks of climate change, monitoring and evaluation system 481
for the adaptation programs are required . 482
483
Author Contributions: Jae-Seung Lee (Corresponding author) and Jeong Won Kim (First author) conceived and 484
designed the s tudy; Jeong Won Kim analyzed the data; Jae -Seung Lee and Jeong Won Kim wrote the paper. 485
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest . 486

Sustainability 2016, 8, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/ sustainability
Appendix . The number of adaptation programs, planned budget, and actual expenditure of 6 metropoli tan cities in South Korea (2012 -2016) 487
(unit: million KRW) 488
Sector/ Specific plan Seoul Busan Daegu
programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure
Total 155 3,620,143 3,602,143 211 1,765,48
6 1,208,395 235 1,998,21
2 678,538
Health 30 737,324 946,464 29 333,650 176,666 36 146,407 72,573
 Health impact assessment resulting from heat wave and UV and
monitoring system 2 0 0 5 8,100 0 0 0 0
 Reducing damages by heat wave and UV 17 676,299 690,541 9 317,700 104,005 23 140,843 33,658
 Health impact assessment resulting from climate hazards, monitoring
system, and reduction 2 9,620 4,217 0 0 4,633 3 3,471 3,466
 Health impact assessment resulting from ecosystem change and
monitorin g 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
 Infectious disease surveillance and management 3 5,180 5,575 6 700 4,482 5 393 830
 R&D for infectous diseases 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1,070 0
 Health impact assessment resulting from air pollution and monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Reducing damag es by air pollution 2 300 242,89 1 9 7,150 62,28 7 2 100 33,79 4
 Health impact assessment resulting from chemicals and monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Managing allergenic environmental factors 1 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Preventing and managing al lergies 3 44,825 3,240 0 0 1,251 1 530 825
Disaster/ Infrastructure 53 2,023,172 2,157,140 24 15,584 581,080 32 728,524 175,488
 Risk assessment of natural disasters caused by climate change 0 0 0 3 1,600 0 2 100 0
 Strengthening standard s and institutions 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6,300 0
 Disaster insurance 1 0 65 2 1,584 0 2 26,250 287
 Disaster prevention programs for areas at high risk 3 19,957 48,76 9 4 600 347,25 5 2 84,393 60,824
 R&D for climate control 14 15,966 18,534 0 0 36,28 1 11 8,994 37,17 4
 Early -warning and r esponse system to disasters 5 1,500 94,024 3 4,500 19,672 3 80 0
 Post -disaster recovery to prevent recurrent damages 2 94,190 91,850 8 6,700 52,234 0 0 500
 Installation of rainwater runoff reduct ion facilities 0 0 322,915 0 0 122,89 1 2 0 38,728
 Stable management and disaster prevention system of waste treatment
facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Improvement of sewerage system 12 1,699,686 1,356,68 4 4 600 2,502 2 602,000 35,213

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 27
 Ident ification of vulnerable areas to climate change and adaptation plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Land use plans considering climate change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Improving adaptation capacity of cities 0 0 2,103 0 0 244 0 0 0
 Building climate -resilien t, disaster -preventive cities 1 590 1,112 0 0 0 0 0 1,876
 Etc.(Responding to heavy snow and strong wind) 14 191,283 221,084 0 0 0 4 407 884
Sector/ Specific plan Seoul Busan Daegu
programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure progr ams budget expenditure
Agriculture 2 3,060 29,824 11 22,040 20,558 24 42,999 45,794
 Crop yield estimation and prediction 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
 Climate -adaptive species and new cultivars 0 0 0 2 8,000 0 2 7,796 3,295
 Climate -adaptive culti vation techniques 0 0 971 2 200 5,074 3 5,830 9,474
 Improvement and management of livestock 0 0 0 0 0 155 0 0 4,067
 Forage supply 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 77
 Efficient use and saving of agricultural water 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 170 0
 Stable supp ly of agricultural water 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19,243 300
 Vulnerability assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 0
 Technology development to relieve climate hazards 0 0 9 4 13,840 5,079 3 2,445 6,194
 Agricultural infrastructure to prevent damage by storm and flood 0 0 0 0 0 3,620 2 5,210 11,339
 Disease and insect pest control system 0 0 196 1 0 98 3 50 5
 Forecast of foreign disease and insect pest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
 Prevention of animal diseases 0 0 1,101 0 0 2,727 2 2,155 6,525
 Etc. (Promotion of urban farming) 2 3,060 27,54 7 0 0 3,789 0 0 4,417
Forest 11 372,371 227,662 25 155,900 127,696 15 22,002 61,385
 Protecting plant species vulnerable to climate change 0 0 0 4 67,600 30,702 2 450 9,386
 Forest for wat ershed conservation 0 0 0 3 2,600 0 4 5,693 7,251
 Impact and vulnerability assessment of forestry 0 0 0 2 1,000 0 0 0 0
 Increasing forest productivity 1 2,578 0 2 0 256 0 0 256
 Vulnerability assessment of forest disasters 1 0 0 0 0 330 3 185 235
 Prevention and alleviation of forester disaste 4 329,932 107,687 8 65,500 34,308 3 12,389 17,08 6
 Disease and insect pest control system 0 0 14,159 2 0 30,14 8 3 3,285 5,481
 Climate -adaptive forest management 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 12
 Etc. (Management of street trees/ maintenance of mountain trails) 3 39,861 105,676 4 19,200 31,95 2 0 0 21,67 9
Ocean/Fisheries 0 0 0 46 77,700 96,615 0 0 0
 Vulnerability assessment of coastal areas to sea -level rise 0 0 0 4 1,500 0 0 0 0

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 27
 Scientific management system to predict and respond to change in
external force 0 0 0 14 18,300 173 0 0 0
 Coastal topography change and adaptation plan 0 0 0 6 8,250 35,89 7 0 0 0
 Management of fishing condition of littoral sea and fishery resou rces 0 0 0 5 1,300 90 0 0 0
 Securing future fishery resources 0 0 0 7 2,350 11,39 5 0 0 0
 Enhancing observation and management of coastal fisheries 0 0 0 3 1,000 0 0 0 0
 Management of infectious disease of marine creatures 0 0 0 0 22,500 162 0 0 0
 Reducing damages by ocean acidification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Allieviating fishery disasters 0 0 0 3 0 12,226 0 0 0
 Etc. (technology to stor e, process and distribute marine products) 0 0 0 4 22,500 36,67 2 0 0 0
Sector/ Specific plan Seoul Busan Daeg u
programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure
Water management 53 476,810 192,835 25 37,650 177,204 28 898,436 247,943
 Strengthening water management monitoring 1 0 2,879 3 1,250 671 2 0 466
 Impact a nd vulnerability assessment 1 0 0 4 2,000 0 0 0 0
 Infrastructure for flood prevention 7 22,200 42,565 8 2,000 0 3 6,800 11,635
 Demand management through efficient water use 4 0 0 0 0 61 2 1,600 43
 Stable wate resources 4 2,313 3,442 0 0 3 4 0 27
 Developing alternative water s ources 12 33,628 37,15 1 3 30,700 0 9 782,913 5,885
 Maximizing adaptation capacity of rivers 3 76,564 48,424 3 1,200 71,55 9 6 106,148 112,538
 Export of water management technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,440
 Management of water quality 20 292,865 30,44 7 0 0 49,16 4 2 975 51,546
 Restoration of aquatic ecosystem 1 49,240 27,927 4 500 55,747 0 0 36,36 1
Ecosystem 6 7,406 25,861 12 47,300 9,879 17 23,495 10,651
 Monitoring ecosystem and vulnerable species 3 1,177 586 0 0 0 3 1,080 149
 Impact and vulnerability assessment 0 0 0 5 4,300 0 0 0 0
 Conservation of biodiversity 2 5,969 12,129 3 500 7,538 4 5,358 2,581
 Restoration of ecological axis 0 0 12,987 4 42,500 1,589 3 17,008 7,921
 Management system f or foreign species 1 260 0 0 0 752 0 0 0
 Governance for ecosystem management and promotion 0 0 159 0 0 0 3 49 0
Climate change monitoring/projection 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 19,350 0
 3-dimensional observation system 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5,700 0
 Monitoring local climate 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7,450 0
 Standardized national climate change scenario 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 500 0
 Producing regional climate and extreme climate data 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1,000 0

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 27
 Global climate change projection model 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Regional climate model for Korea Peninsula 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1,000 0
 Technology development for Early-warning of extreme climate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Integrated monitoring of climate and air pollution 0 0 895 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Services to provide projection/monitoring data 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3,700 0
Adapt ation industry/Energy 0 0 0 25 874,860 12,742 23 63,544 63,166
 Impact and vulnerability assessment 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 600 0
 Establishment of adaptation plan by industry 0 0 0 2 1,370 0 6 1,030 0
 Developing and supporting new/promising industries 0 0 9,459 21 873,490 12,74 2 15 61,914 63,16 6
 Stable energy supply 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Education/Promotion/International cooperation 0 0 11,961 14 200,802 5,955 36 53,455 1,538
 Education and promotion to raise awareness 0 0 1,461 8 850 2,122 18 8,305 1,412
 Infrastructure for adaptation capacity building 0 0 3,673 3 150,500 7 12 40,700 126
 International cooperation for adaptation 0 0 6,828 3 49,452 3,826 6 4,450 0
489
Sector/ Specific plan Daejeon Incheon Ulsan
programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure
Total 125 925,255 546,253 63 529,345 1,084 ,965 118 1,586,43
2 867,899
Health 20 147,320 94,113 23 61,100 167,599 20 475,575 101,578
 Health impact assessment resulting from heat wave and UV and
monitoring system 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Reducing damages by heat wave a nd UV 14 145,868 70,218 7 14,596 29,100 7 425,680 73,377
 Health impact assessment resulting from climate hazards, monitoring
system, and reduction 4 1,360 2,741 4 36,502 32,300 1 1,620 2,191
 Health impact assessment resulting from ecosystem c hange and
monitoring system 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
 Infectious disease surveillance and management 2 92 6,374 0 7,449 16,259 6 3,465 3,563
 R&D for infectous diseases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Health impact assessment resulting from air pollution and monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Reducing damages by air pollution 0 0 14,755 0 0 89,837 3 42,160 22,448
 Health impact assessment resulting from chemicals and monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Managing allergenic environmental factors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Preventing and managing allergies 0 0 25 6 2,553 102 3 2,650 0

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 27
Disaster/ Infrastructure 29 377,047 249,903 4 177,808 360,169 19 270,343 346,258
 Risk assessment of natural disasters caused by climate change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Strengthening standar ds and institutions 6 1,700 108 0 0 813 0 0 2,350
 Disaster insurance 2 15 56 1 0 75 1 60 0
 Disaster prevention programs for areas at high risk 0 0 5,928 1 4,708 35,267 3 16,823 42,722
 R&D for climate control 8 45,624 35,204 0 0 34,804 3 255 31,174
 Early -warning and r esponse system to disasters 0 0 4,033 0 0 10,275 2 0 66,304
 Post -disaster recovery to prevent recurrent damages 2 482 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,272
 Installation of rainwater runoff reduction facilities 6 324,379 203,478 0 0 185,290 2 54,992 168,618
 Stable m anagement and disaster prevention system of waste treatment
facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Improvement of sewerage system 5 4,847 0 2 173,100 88,550 7 153,439 31,023
 Identification of vulnera ble areas to climate change and adaptation plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Land use plans considering climate change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Improving adaptation capacity of cities 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 44,774 0
 Building climate -resilient, disaster -preventive cities 0 0 0 0 0 2,341 0 0 2,794
 Etc.(Responding to heavy snow and strong wind) 0 0 1,096 0 0 2,753 0 0 0
Sector/ Specific plan Daejeon Incheon Ulsan
programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure programs budget expendit ure
Agriculture 11 24,004 20,765 10 90,439 126,657 20 47,249 62,240
 Crop yield estimation and prediction 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 0
 Climate -adaptive species and new cultivars 0 0 0 0 1,009 1 170 3,212
 Climate -adaptive cultivation techniques 6 18,806 10,636 4 0 24,596 11 39,569 20,152
 Improvement and management of livestock 0 0 1,294 0 0 2,493 0 0 63
 Forage supply 0 0 483 0 0 1,090 0 0 12,546
 Efficient use and saving of agricultural water 0 0 441 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Stable supply of agricultural water 2 4,200 0 1 0 20,984 1 0 0
 Vulnerability assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Technology development to relieve climate hazards 3 998 317 1 32,664 5,636 1 0 3,724
 Agricultural infrastructure to prevent damage by storm and flood 0 0 1,300 1 57,760 51,466 1 1,679 9,389
 Disease and insect pest control system 0 0 100 3 15 1,324 1 0 140
 Forecast of foreign disease and insect pest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Prevention of animal diseases 0 0 2,845 0 0 10,716 3 5,797 10,954
 Etc. (Promotion of urban farming) 0 0 3,351 0 0 7,343 0 0 2,061

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 27
Forest 11 37,628 58,373 8 31,717 49,827 6 60,108 105,967
 Protecting plant species vulnerable to climate change 0 0 10,447 0 0 0 0 0 721
 Forest fo r watershed conservation 4 2,091 10,310 2 14,831 13,140 0 0 12,981
 Impact and vulnerability assessment of forestry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Increasing forest productivity 0 0 2,815 0 0 7,011 0 0 476
 Vulnerability assessment of forest disaster s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 591
 Prevention and alleviation of forester disaste 7 16,886 14,194 3 12,710 21,646 1 32,833 35,098
 Disease and insect pest control system 0 0 1,550 3 4,176 3,463 2 25,545 39,302
 Climate -adaptive forest management 0 0 4 0 0 230 2 0 2,797
 Etc. (Management of street trees/ maintenance of mountain trails) 0 18,651 19,052 0 0 4,337 0 1,530 14,002
Ocean/Fisheries 0 0 0 4 5,123 131,724 10 77,503 29,054
 Vulnerability assessment of coastal areas to sea -level rise 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 0
 Scientific management system to predict and respond to change in
external force 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Coastal topography change and adaptation plan 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 2,905
 Management of fishing condition of littoral sea and fis hery resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 0
 Securing future fishery resources 0 0 0 0 0 45,876 4 13,187 12,005
 Enhancing observation and management of coastal fisheries 0 0 0 0 0 8,408 1 700 0
 Management of infectious disease of marine creatures 0 0 0 0 0 187 1 150 322
 Reducing damages by ocean acidification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Allieviating fishery disasters 0 0 0 4 5,123 71,786 2 63,400 12,310
 Etc. (technology to stor e, process and distribute marine products) 0 0 0 0 0 5,374 0 0 1,511
Sector/ Speci fic plan Daejeon Incheon Ulsan
programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure programs budget expenditure
Water management 31 319,693 79,501 11 158,291 108,036 23 442,220 155,811
 Strengthening water management monitoring 0 0 1,604 0 0 1,399 0 0
 Impact and vulnerability assessment 0 0 0 0 0 270 1 200 3,299
 Infrastructure for flood prevention 0 0 19,037 0 0 1,668 2 700 0
 Demand management through efficient water use 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 250 0
 Stable wate resources 8 685 1,345 0 0 16,241 4 135,231 9,135
 Developing alternative water sources 2 0 0 0 0 16,829 5 166,240 3,142
 Maximizing adaptation capacity of rivers 6 107,860 38,982 0 0 65,427 3 126,140 115,329
 Export of water management technologies 3 50 60 0 0 0 0 0
 Management of water quality 11 201,740 3,489 0 0 6,262 4 13,209 5,591
 Restoration of aquatic ecosystem 1 9,358 14,981 11 158,291 0 1 250 19,315

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 27
Ecosystem 15 5,773 30,728 3 4,867 14,141 5 20,155 4,450
 Monitoring ecosystem and v ulnerable species 4 2,973 0 1 623 0 1 83 0
 Impact and vulnerability assessment 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
 Conservation of biodiversity 1 0 6,777 0 0 4,174 1 44,774 4,450
 Restoration of ecological axis 8 2,800 23,951 2 4,244 9,917 2 20,072 0
 Management system for foreign species 1 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0
 Governance for ecosystem management and promotion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Climate change monitoring/projection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 3-dimensional observation system 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Monitoring local climate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Standardized nati onal climate change scenario 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Producing regional climate and extreme climate data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Global climate change projection model 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Regional climate model for Korea Peninsula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Technology de velopment for Early-warning of extreme climate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Integrated monitoring of climate and air pollution 0 0 0 0 0 427 0 0 0
 Services to provide projection/monitoring data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Adaptation industry/Energy 1 12,400 8,811 0 0 107,713 11 192,679 59,950
 Impact and vulnerability assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
 Establishment of adaptation plan by industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 200 0
 Developing and supporting new/promising industries 1 12,400 8,811 0 0 107,713 7 192,479 59,950
 Stable energy supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Education/Promotion/International cooperation 7 1,390 4,059 0 0 18,673 4 600 2,591
 Education and promotion to raise awareness 2 90 3,890 0 0 5,052 2 500 2,374
 Infrastructure for adaptation capacity building 5 1,300 169 0 0 1,361 0 0 69
 International cooperation for adaptation 0 0 0 0 0 12,260 2 100 148
490

Sustainability 2016, 8, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/ sustainability
References 491
1. UNDESA. The world’s cities in 2016 – Data booklet (ST/EAS/SER.A/392); United Nations Department of 492
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2016 ; pp. 1 -9. Available online: 493
2. UN-HABITAT. World cities report 2016 – Urbanization and development: Emerging futures ; United Nations 494
Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016 ; pp. 1 -17. Available online: 495
http://wcr.unhabitat.org/wp -content/uploads/2017/02/WCR -2016 -Full-Report.pdf 496
3. Brennan, E.M. Population, urbanization, environment, and security: A summary of the issues. 497
Environmental Change and Secu rity Project Report 1999 , 5(4), e14. Available online: 498
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.557.4969&rep=rep1&type=pdf 499
4. Cohen, B. Urbani zation in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for 500
sustainability. Technology in Society 2006 , 28, 63 -80; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.005 501
5. Henderson, V. Urbanization in developing countries. World Bank Res Obs 2002 , 17(1), 89 -112; 502
https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/17.1.89 503
6. Spaans, M.; Waterhout, B. Building up resilience in cities worldwide – Rotterdam as participant in the 100 504
Resilient Cities Programme. Cities 2017 , 61, 109 -116; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.011 505
7. Moore, M.; Gould, P.; Keary, B.S. Global urbanization an d impact on health. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2003 , 506
206, 269 -278; https://doi.org/10.1078/1438 -4639 -00223 507
8. UN-HABITAT. Global report on human settlements 2011 – Cities and climate change ; United Nations Human 508
Settlements Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011; pp. vi -viii. Available online: 509
https://unhabitat.org/books/cities -and-climate -change -global -report-on-human -settlements -2011/ 510
9. IPCC. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the fifth 511
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Cambridge University Press: New York, 512
NY, US A, 2014 ; pp. 535 -612. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment – 513
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5 -Chap8_FINAL.pdf 514
10. Georgeson, L.; Maslin, M.; Poessinouw, M.; Howard, S. Adaptation responses to climate change differ 515
between global megacities. Nat Clim Change 2016 , 6(6), 584; https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2944 516
11. Wamsler, C.; Brink, E.; Rivera, C. Planning for climate cha nge in urban areas: from theory to practice. J 517
Clean Prod 2013 , 50, 68 -81; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.008 518
12. UNISDR; USAID; CRED. 2011 Disasters in numbers. 2012 . Available onlin e: 519
https://www.unisdr.org/files/24692_2011disasterstats.pdf 520
13. UNISDR. National disaster risk assessment: Governance system, methodologies, and use of results ; United Nations 521
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017 ; pp.21 -25. Available online: 522
https://www.unisdr.org/files/52828_nationaldisasterriskassessmentwiagu.pdf 523
14. Hunt, A. ; Watkiss, P. Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: A review of the literature. Climatic 524
Change 2011 , 104, 13 -49; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584 -010-9975 -6 525
15. De Sherbinin, A.; Schiller , A.; Pulsipher, A. The vulnerability of global cities to climate hazards. Environ 526
Urban 2007, 19(1), 39 -64; http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/0956247807076725 527
16. Reckien, D.; Flacke, J.; Dawson, R.J.; Heidr ich, O.; Olazabal, M.; Foley, A.; Hamann, J.J -P.; Orru, H.; Salvia, 528
M.; De Gregorio Hurtado, S.; Geneletti, D.; Pietrapertosa, F. Climate change response in Europe: What’s 529
the reality? Analysis of adaptation and mitigation plans from 200 urban areas in 11 countries. Climatic 530
Change 2014 , 122: 331 -340; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584 -013-0989 -8 531
17. UNISDR. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2015 ; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk 532
Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; pp.53 -88. Available online: 533
https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar -pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf 534
18. Davoudi, S. Re silience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Plan Theory Pract 2012 , 13(2), 299 -333; 535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124 536
19. Jabareen, Y. Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strateg ies for coping with climate change and 537
environmental risk. Cities 2013 , 31, 220 -229; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.05.004 538

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 27
20. Desouza, K.C.; Flanery, T.H. Designing, planning, and managin g resilient cities: A conceptual framework. 539
Cities 2013 , 35, 89 -99; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.003 540
21. Leichenko, R. Climate change and urban resilience. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2011, 3, 164 -168; 541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.014 542
22. IPCC. Annex II: Glossary. In Climate change 2014: Synthesis report . Contribution of Working Group I, II 543
and III to the fifth asse ssment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Intergovernmental 544
Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014 ; pp. 117 -130. Available online: 545
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment -report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Glossary.pdf 546
23. Broto, V.C.; Bulkeley, H. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob Environ Change 547
2013 , 23, 92 -102; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005 548
24. Shi, L.; Chu, E.; Debats, J. Explaining progress in climate adaptation planning across 156 U.S. municipalities. 549
J Am Plan Assoc 2015 , 81(3), 191 -202; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1074526 550
25. Hamin, E.M.; Gurran N. Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. 551
and Australia. Habitat Int 2009 , 33, 238 -245; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.005 552
26. Biesbroek, G.R.; Swart, R.J.; Carter, T.R.; Cowan, C.; Henrichs, T.; Mela, H.; Morecroft, M.D.; Rey, D. Europe 553
adaps to climate change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Glob Environ Change 2010 , 20, 440 -450; 554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.005 555
27. Füssel , H.M. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. 556
Sustain Sci 2007 , 2, 265 -275; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625 -007-0032 -y 557
28. Preston, B.L; Westaway, R.M.; Yuen, E.J. Climate adaptation planning in practice: An evaluation of 558
adaptation plans from t hree developed nations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 2011 , 16, 407 -438; 559
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027 -010-9270 -x 560
29. Mullan, M.; Kingsmill, N.; Kramer, A.M. Agrawala, S. National adaptation plan ning: Lessons from OECD 561
countries. OECD Environment Working Papers 2013 , 54, 1 -74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k43jpfpsq1 -en 562
30. Adger, W.N.; Arnell, N.W.; Tompkins, E.L. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob 563
Environ Change 2005 , 15, 77 -86; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005 564
31. De Bruin, K.; Dellink, B.; Ruijs, A.; Bolwidt, L.; Van Buuren, A.; Graveland, J.; De Groot, R.S.; Kuikman, P.J.; 565
Reinhard, S.; Roetter, R.P.; Tassone, V.C.; Verhagen, A.; Van Ierland, E.C. Adapting to climate change in 566
the Netherlands: An inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic Change 567
2009, 95: 23 -45; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584 -009-9576 -4 568
32. Moser, C.; Satterthwaite, D. Towards pro -poor adaptation to climate change in the urban centres of low – 569
and middle -income countries. Global Urban Re search Centre Working Paper #1. October 2008 . Available 570
online: 571
http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publications/workingpapers/gurc/GURC _wp1.pdf 572
33. Tyler, S.; Moench, M. A framework for urban climate resilience. Clim Dev 2012 , 4(4), 311 -326; 573
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2012.745389 574
34. IPCC. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptatio n, and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the fifth 575
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Cambridge University Press: New York, 576
NY, USA, 2014 ; pp. 833 -868. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment – 577
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5 -Chap14_FINAL.pdf 578
35. UKCIP. Identifying adaptation options . UK Climate Impacts Programme: Oxford, UK, 2008 ; pp. 12 -31. 579
Available online: https://ukcip.ouce.ox.ac.uk/wp -content/PDFs/ID_Adapt_options.pdf 580
36. Bedsworth, L.W.; Hanak, E. Climate policy at the local level: Insights from California. Glob Environ Change 581
2013, 23, 664 -677; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.004 582
37. Lesnikowski, A.C.; Ford, J.D.; Berrang -Ford, L.; Barrera, M.; Heymann, J. How are we adapting to climate 583
change? A global assessment. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 2015 , 20(2), 277 -293; 584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027 -013-9491 -x 585
38. Carmin, J.; Roberts, D.; Anguelovski, I. Planning climate resilient cities: Early lessons from earl y adapters. 586
Paper prepared for the World Bank 5th Urban Research Symposium, Cities and Climate Change: 587
Responding to an Urgent Agenda, June 2009 . Available online: 588
http://www.academia.edu/download/30581072/carmin_earlycityadaptation.pdf 589

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 27
39. Ford, J.D.; Berrang -Ford, L.; Paterson, J. A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in 590
developed nations. Climatic Change 2011 , 106: 327 -336; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584 -011-0045 -5 591
40. Carter, J. Climate change adaptation in European cities. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2011 , 3(3), 193 -198; 592
http://dx.do i.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.015 593
41. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Implementation plan for climate change adaptation strategy (2012 -2016). 594
December 2011 , Available online: http://ccas .kei.re.kr/community/manual/plan/plan_view1.do 595
42. Busan Metropolitan City. Implementation plan for climate change adaptation strategy (2012 -2016). 596
February 2012, Available online: http://ccas.kei.re.kr/community/manual/plan/plan_view1.do 597
43. Daegu Metropolitan City. Implementation plan for climate change adaptation strategy (2012 -2016). 598
February 2012, Available online: http://ccas.kei.re.kr/community/manual/plan/plan_view1.do 599
44. Daejeon Metropolitan City. Implementation plan for climate change adaptation strategy (2012 -2016). 600
February 2012, Available online: http://ccas.kei.re.kr/community/manual/plan/plan_view1.do 601
45. Incheon Metropolitan City. Implementation plan for climate change adaptation strategy (2012 -2016). 602
February 2012, Available online: http://ccas.kei.re.kr/community/manual/plan/plan_view1.do 603
46. Ulsan Metropolitan City. Implementation plan for climate change adaptation strategy (2012 -2016). 604
February 2012, Available online: http://ccas.kei.re.kr/community/manual/plan/plan_view1.do 605
47. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2012 Expenditure Report. March 2013 . Available online: 606
http://finance.seoul.go.kr/ archives/17868 607
48. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2013 Expenditure Report. March 2014. Available online: 608
http://finance.seoul.go.kr/archives/20659 609
49. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2014 Expenditure Repor t. March 2015. Available online: 610
http://finance.seoul.go.kr/archives/31133 611
50. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2015 Expenditure Report. March 2016. Available online: 612
http://finance.seoul.go.kr/archives/34415 613
51. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2016 Expenditure Report. March 2017. Available online: 614
http://finance.seoul.go.kr/archives/36612 615
52. Busa n Metropolitan City. 2012 Expenditure Report. March 2013 . Available online: 616
http://www.busan.go.kr/public/finalaccount/8 32941?curPage=&srchBeginDt=2008 -05- 617
05&srchEndDt=2018 -05-05&srchKey=&srchText = 618
53. Busan Metropolitan City. 2013 Expenditure Report. March 2014. Available online: 619
http://www.busan.go.kr/public/finalaccount/832946?curPage=&srchBeginDt=2008 -05- 620
05&srchEndDt=2018 -05-05&srchKey=&srchText = 621
54. Busan Metropolitan City. 2014 Expenditure Report. March 2015. Available online: 622
http://www.busan.go.kr/public/finalaccount/832942?curPage=&srchBeginDt=2008 -05- 623
05&srchEndDt=2018 -05-05&srchKey=&srchText = 624
55. Busan Me tropolitan City. 2015 Expenditure Report. March 2016. Available online: 625
http://www.busan.go.kr/public/finalaccount/83293 8?curPage=&srchBeginDt=2008 -05- 626
05&srchEndDt=2018 -05-05&srchKey=&srchText = 627
56. Busan Metropolitan City. 2016 Expenditure Report. March 2017. Available online: 628
http://www.busan.go.kr/public/finalaccount/835694?curPage=&srchBeginDt=2008 -05- 629
05&srchEndDt=2018 -05-05&srchKey=&srchText = 630
57. Daegu Metropolitan City. 2012 Expenditure Report. March 2013 . Available online: 631
http://jumin.daegu.go.kr/budget/account/accountSheet.do 632
58. Daegu Metropolitan City. 2013 Expenditure Report. March 2014. Available online: 633
http://jumin.daegu.go.kr/budget/account/accountSheet.do 634
59. Daegu Metropolitan City. 2014 Expenditure Report. March 2015. Available online: 635
http://jumin.daegu.go.kr/budget/accoun t/accountSheet.do 636
60. Daegu Metropolitan City. 2015 Expenditure Report. March 2016. Available online: 637
http://jumin.daegu.go.kr/budget/account/accountSheet.do 638
61. Daegu Metropolitan City. 20 16 Expenditure Report. March 2017. Available online: 639
http://jumin.daegu.go.kr/budget/account/accountSheet.do 640

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 27
62. Daejeon Metropolitan City. 2012 Expenditure Report. March 2013 . Available online: 641
http://www.daejeon.go.kr/bud/BudFinanceboardList.do 642
63. Daejeon Metropolitan City. 2013 Expenditure Report. March 2014. Available online: 643
http://www.daejeon.go.kr/bud/BudFinanceboardList.do 644
64. Daejeon Metropolitan City. 2014 Expenditure Report. March 2015. Available online: 645
http://www.daejeon.go.kr/bud/ BudFinanceboardList.do 646
65. Daejeon Metropolitan City. 2015 Expenditure Report. March 2016. Available online: 647
http://www.daejeon.go.kr/bud/BudFinanceboardList.do 648
66. Daejeon Metropolitan City. 2016 Expenditure Report. March 2017. Available online: 649
http://www.daejeon.go.kr/bud/BudFinanceboardList.do?boardId=budboard006&menuSeq=372 650
67. Incheon Metropol itan City. 2012 Expenditure Report. March 2013 . Available online: 651
http://www.incheon.go.kr/posts/49/86?rnum=9&curPage=1 652
68. Incheon Metropolitan City. 2013 Expenditure Report. March 2014. A vailable online: 653
http://www.incheon.go.kr/posts/49/86?rnum=9&curPage=1 654
69. Incheon Metropolitan City. 2014 Expenditure Report. March 2015. Available online: 655
http://www.incheon.go.kr/posts/49/86?rnum=9&curPage=1 656
70. Incheon Metropolitan City. 2015 Expenditure Report. March 2016. Available online: 657
http://www. incheon.go.kr/posts/49/86?rnum=9&curPage=1 658
71. Incheon Metropolitan City. 2016 Expenditure Report. March 2017. Available online: 659
http://www.incheon.go.kr/posts/49/86?rnum=9&curPage=1 660
72. Ulsa n Metropolitan City. 2012 Expenditure Report. March 2013 . Available online: 661
https://www.ulsan.go.kr/tax/fhsettlement 662
73. Ulsan Metropolitan City. 2013 Expenditure Report. March 2014. Available online: 663
https://www.ulsan.go.kr/tax/fhsettlement 664
74. Ulsan Metropolitan City. 2014 Expenditure Report. March 2015. Available online: 665
https://www.ulsan.go.k r/tax/fhsettlement 666
75. Ulsan Metropolitan City. 2015 Expenditure Report. March 2016. Available online: 667
https://www.ulsan.go.kr/tax/fhsettlement 668
76. Ulsan Metropolitan City. 2016 Expenditure Report. March 2017. Available online: 669
https://www.ulsan.go.kr/tax/fhsettlement 670
77. Government of Republic of Korea. National climate change adaptation strategy 2011 -2015. October 2010 . 671
Available online: http://www.cdc.go.kr/CDC/cms/content/49/5349_view.html 672
78. Lim, B.; Spanger -Siegfried, E.; Burton, I.; Malone, E.L.; Huq, S. Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: 673
Developing strategies, poli cies and measures . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004 ; pp. 1 -3. 674
675
© 201 6 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the 676
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC -BY) license 677
(http://creativecommons .org/licenses/by/4.0/). 678
679