Introduction
Research background and purpose
Over the past few decades, rapid urbanization and population growth have reshaped land-use patterns (Pickett et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2011) and given rise to a variety of urban environmental challenges, including air pollution, the exacerbation of the urban heat island effect, the loss of green spaces, and declines in biodiversity (Cobbinah et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2024). According to a report by the United Nations (2018), the global urban population is projected to account for approximately 68% of the total population by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). As population concentration and environmental degradation continue to advance in tandem, complex urban hazards such as floods, heatwaves, and droughts are becoming increasingly severe (Pizzorni et al., 2024; Laino et al., 2025). These trends underscore the urgent need for innovative management strategies aimed at enhancing urban sustainability and resilience (Raeei, 2024; Ekeh et al., 2025).
In particular, South Korea has undergone a substantial expansion of impervious surfaces driven by rapid industrialization and urbanization, resulting in the degradation of the natural water circulation system (Kim et al., 2020; Hwang and Kim, 2022). The emergence of complex urban conditions— such as high-density residential development, aging infrastructure, and limited spatial capacity—has exposed the shortcomings of conventional urban management approaches that rely predominantly on gray infrastructure (Depietri, 2022; Seidu et al., 2025). In response to these challenges and in pursuit of enhanced urban sustainability, green infrastructure (hereafter referred to as GI) has gained prominence as a key strategic approach (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021; Liu et al., 2025).
Since its emergence in the 1990s, GI has evolved as a concept that connects various urban spaces—such as green areas, wetlands, waterways, parks, green roofs, and farmlands—into an integrated network (United Nations, 2018), thereby delivering multifunctional benefits spanning ecological, social, and economic dimensions (Herath and Bai, 2024; Kim and Min, 2024). The ecological functions of GI provide benefits such as regulating stormwater runoff and floods, mitigating the urban heat island effect, and enhancing biodiversity (Venkataramanan et al., 2020; Norton et al., 2015; Filazzola et al., 2019). Its social functions offer advantages including the promotion of recreational activities, public health improvement, and the strengthening of local communities (Tzoulas et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2022), while its economic functions contribute to increased property values, improved maintenance, and cost savings (Byrne et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2020; Jim, 2015). Thus, GI is increasingly recognized not merely as a means of landscape design but as a fundamental form of urban infrastructure that enhances overall environmental performance (Wang et al., 2024; Li et al., 2025). Its effectiveness has been progressively substantiated through a growing body of empirical research (Bhatt et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2025).
In South Korea, early research on GI since the mid-2010s has focused on low impact development (LID)-based water management, as well as reducing non-point source pollution and improving impervious surfaces (Kim et al., 2020; Kim, 2022). These studies have empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of GI in stormwater management through infiltration and storage facilities, as well as in reducing urban runoff. The number of studies quantitatively assessing the environmental impacts of GI has also steadily increased (Hwang and Kim, 2022; Lee and Kim, 2022). Furthermore, GI research has expanded into diverse forms of empirical analysis, including spatial modeling that integrates complex variables such as climatic conditions, land use patterns, and vegetation composition. Some studies have begun addressing the social effects of GI by examining residents’ perceptions, spatial use behaviors, and quality of life. These efforts have sought to clarify the relationships between physical and ecological performance of GI and its associated social outcomes (Herath and Bai, 2024; Jones and Russo, 2024).
Despite these advances, much of the domestic research in South Korea has been conducted with a focus on single regions, and relatively few studies have compared or analyzed the differences in the effects of GI applications based on regional characteristics or spatial scales (Lee and Kim, 2022; Mueca et al., 2025). In addition, systematic reviews examining the spatial distribution and methodological trends of empirical GI research remain limited, constraining a comprehensive understanding of the common effects of GI and the underlying constraints associated with its implementation in urban contexts. These limitations hinder the accumulation of robust academic evidence and empirical data necessary for the effective application and broader diffusion of GI (Short et al., 2017; Zulian et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2025).
Therefore, this study aims to systematically review empirical GI studies conducted in South Korea, with particular attention to their regional distribution, research methodologies, and the characteristics of the analyzed subjects. Through this review, this study seeks to offer foundational evidence to inform future directions in GI research and application, while also suggesting strategic pathways for the effective dissemination of GI.
Research Methods
Methodology
This study conducted a scoping review to systematically collect literature on empirical studies of GI and to examine the current status and outcomes. Unlike a systematic review, which seeks to specifically compare and validate specific research populations, interventions, and outcomes, a scoping review is a methodological approach designed to determine the scope or applicability of the literature on a given topic and to clearly outline the volume and focus of available studies and research (Munn et al., 2018). In other words, it is useful for broadly identifying research trends within a given topic and for deriving areas that warrant further investigation. It may also be employed as a preliminary approach prior to conducting a systematic review, in order to clarify the scope of the research or to establish the research context (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). The methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was first proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and comprises five stages: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The present study adhered to this framework in the selection and analysis of the relevant literature. Additionally, to ensure transparency in the literature search and selection processes, this review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018). The PRISMA-ScR guidelines, developed by Tricco et al. (2018), are conceptually aligned with the PRISMA flow diagram used for systematic reviews but are designed with greater flexibility to accommodate the characteristics of scoping reviews. Accordingly, this study followed the PRISMA-ScR framework to define the research question and implement a four-stage methodological process, including Identification, Screening, and Included (Fig. 1).
First of all, this study formulated the research questions as follows.
RQ 1: What regional distributions and subjects have empirical studies on GI in South Korea focused on?
RQ 2: What research methodologies have been employed in empirical studies on GI in South Korea, and how do these methodological trends differ across study types?
RQ 3: How do the functions of GI vary according to regional distribution and target, and how do results differ depending on the research methodology?
Guided by these research questions, the data collection phase involved compiling a comprehensive set of GI-related studies from academic databases. During the subsequent screening stage, only studies that empirically assessed the effects of GI in real-world settings were included for analysis. Finally, in the data analysis stage, the selected studies were categorized and examined according to study area, target, and analytical methods, in line with the study objectives. Detailed procedures for literature selection and analysis are presented below.
Identification
In the identification phase, Korean academic database platforms were used to explore studies focusing on the application of specific concepts, such as GI, within the Korean context. These platforms provide broader access to domestic research outputs than international academic databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. The Korean academic databases consulted included the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), DBpia, and the Korea Information System (KISS). RISS, operated by the Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS), is the largest integrated academic information platform in Korea, encompassing a wide range of research outputs, including journal articles, dissertations, and conference presentations. Meanwhile, DBpia and KISS are privately operated platforms that enable rapid searches for academic papers; however, access to some articles requires a fee. While these platforms specialize in providing full-text access to articles indexed in RISS, their search coverage is considerably more limited than that of RISS. Accordingly, this study primarily utilized RISS as the main database, as it offers advanced filtering functions by publication period and subject area, enabling more efficient and comprehensive data retrieval for specific keywords such as GI.
Furthermore, this study adopted “green infrastructure,” a term that integrates the concepts of green and infrastructure, as the primary search keyword. The term was first formally introduced in the 1999 report of the U.S. President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD, 1999). By integrating natural and physical elements, green infrastructure represents a key research topic that encompasses ecological, social, and economic functions. Given the complex nature of green infrastructure, this study focused exclusively on this term and employed it as a single search keyword. The literature search was conducted on June 28, 2025, using the comprehensive search function of RISS to identify publications that included the term “green infrastructure” in their title, keywords, and/or full text. As a result, a total of 4,294 relevant articles were retrieved, and a bibliography was compiled based on these search results.
Screening
In the screening stage, predefined selection criteria were systematically applied to refine the initially collected publications. First, to exclude studies lacking direct relevance to the research topic, 3,952 papers that did not include the keyword “green infrastructure” and for which full-text access was unavailable were removed. Furthermore, as the aim of this study was to review empirical research on GI conducted in South Korea, the scope was restricted to academic journal articles in order to ensure consistency in the units of analysis, methodological rigor, and the overall reliability of the literature. As a result, a total of 130 publications were excluded, including those published in non-journal formats (e.g., reports and theses), those not indexed in KCI, SCOPUS, or SCIE, as well as duplicate records. Finally, a full-text review for eligibility was conducted. During this stage, abstracts and full texts were examined with particular attention to research location and the presence of empirical evidence. This process led to the exclusion of an additional 181 papers. Through these screening procedures, a final set of 31 articles was selected for in-depth analysis.
Included
The inclusion process for the final 31 selected studies is as follows. Based on the research objectives, this study conducted a systematic review of the literature using bibliographic and content analysis. First, each article was classified according to the spatial scope of the study into three categories: metropolitan, municipal, and sub-municipal levels. This classification provided a foundational framework for comparing the spatial scale of application and the spatial characteristics of GI research. Next, the articles were reclassified according to their research methodologies. This step involved identifying the analytical tools and techniques employed in each study and grouping identical or similar methodologies to systematize the analytical approaches. This process established a basis for identifying methodological trends and variations in empirical GI research conducted in South Korea.
Therefore, this study aims to systematically review prior empirical research on GI in order to comprehensively understand the spatial characteristics and methodological trends examined in the literature, and to organize and assess the current state of GI research within the urban context of South Korea.
Results
Study Area Analysis
Empirical research on GI in South Korea demonstrates a pronounced regional imbalance. Among the 31 reviewed studies, more than half were concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area, including Seoul (7 studies), Gyeonggi Province (6), and Incheon (3). Outside this region, empirical research was conducted in only a limited number of areas, with Busan (3) and Chung-nam Province (4) as the sole notable exceptions. In particular, no empirical studies were identified in Gwangju, Gyeong-buk Province, Gyeong-nam Province, Gangwon Province, or Jeju Province, indicating pronounced regional disparities and significant research gaps (Fig. 2).
This spatial distribution highlights the current landscape of GI empirical research in South Korea, which is heavily concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area and a few major cities. Specifically, 16 of the 31 studies (51.6%) were conducted in the metropolitan region, comprising Seoul (22.6%), Gyeonggi Province (19.4%), and Incheon (9.7%). This concentration suggests that GI research capacity is largely centered in densely populated and economically advantaged areas, underscoring a lack of region-specific and locally tailored GI strategies for non-metropolitan regions.
Furthermore, to more clearly delineate the scope of empirical research on GI, this study classified study areas into three categories: metropolitan, municipal, and sub-municipal. At first glance, the 31 empirical GI studies in South Korea appear to be relatively evenly distributed across these categories, comprising 10 metropolitan-, 11 municipal-, and 10 sub-municipal-level studies. However, a closer examination of the specific study locations reveals a persistent bias toward the Seoul metropolitan area and a limited number of metropolitan cities. At the metropolitan level, Seoul accounted for the largest share of studies (n = 4), followed by Sejong (n = 2). At the municipal level, Gyeonggi Province and Chung-nam Province were the most frequently studied, with three studies each. Similarly, at the sub-municipal level, Gyeonggi Province remained the most prominent location (n = 3), followed by Seoul, Busan, and Incheon, with two studies each. These results demonstrate that metropolitan-focused GI research is strongly linked to national policy frameworks, while highlighting the need to promote the application and expansion of GI in smaller-scale and non-metropolitan regions.
Metropolitan Level
Empirical research on GI at the metropolitan level has been actively conducted, with a primary focus on ecological resources such as green spaces and water resources, including urban parks, wetlands, and land use and land cover (LU and LC) (Table 1).
First of all, studies focusing on LU and LC—encompassing land cover maps, biotopes, and land use—have predominantly integrated GIS-based spatial analysis with hydrological modeling to analyze the effects of land use and land cover changes on GI functions. Representative examples include the estimation of stormwater runoff using the SCS-CN model, which evaluates rainfall–runoff relationships based on land use and soil characteristics (Seo and Kim, 2015); the derivation of surface runoff networks through least-cost path (LCP) analysis (Han et al., 2020), the assessment of spatial consistency using fragmentation indices (Park et al., 2018); and the evaluation of particulate matter vulnerability using the InVEST Carbon model—which quantitatively evaluates the value of ecosystem services related to carbon storage and sequestration— combined with Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), a nonparametric statistical method for estimating probability density functions (Lee et al., 2025). In addition, recent studies have employed text mining and topic modeling techniques to analyze changes in GI-related usage culture (Chae and Cho, 2021). These analyses demonstrate that GI provides both ecological and social functions, including flood risk mitigation, air pollution reduction, and the establishment of land management standards. In particular, the findings further indicate that land use changes directly constrain the feasibility of GI implementation, with greater challenges observed in areas characterized by a high proportion of built-up structures. At the same time, GI has been shown to deliver cultural benefits—such as improvements in health, leisure opportunities, and mental well-being—highlighting its potential to simultaneously enhance cultural ecosystem services.
Studies on GI, particularly those focusing on green spaces within urban parks such as neighborhood parks, have predominantly employed a combination of GIS-based spatial surveys, expert consultations, indicator development, and modeling approaches to evaluate social equity and disaster mitigation functions. Specifically, research has utilized field surveys and GIS analyses to develop compensation and management strategies for unimplemented neighborhood parks (Shin and Baek, 2020), as well as the Park Desert index and clustering techniques to evaluate the accessibility and equity of urban parks (McCarty et al., 2024). Furthermore, Sim (2025) integrated GIS with the InVEST-UFRM model, which predicts and simulates flood risk and its impacts, to analyze the effects of urban park expansion on flood risk reduction. These analyses demonstrate that urban parks contribute not only to the enhancement of publicness but also to flood risk mitigation by improving rainwater retention and infiltration capacity. Notably, park accessibility was found to be closely associated with social equity, indicating that GI plays a critical role in reducing social inequalities and strengthening disaster resilience, beyond its function as a provider of green space.
Studies on GI that focus on urban wetlands have primarily examined their ecological functions and climate regulation capacity. Methodologically, these studies have mainly employed the Rapid Assessment Method for Sustainable Wetland Function (RAMS), which enables rapid and efficient evaluation of wetland conditions, in combination with statistical validation techniques to assess GI functionality and climate regulation potential. Reliability testing (Cronbach’s α), factor analysis, and expert brainstorming were used to develop assessment items for sustainable wetland functions (Park and Koo, 2024). RAMS was subsequently applied to actual wetland sites to analyze changes in functionality and carbon uptake in response to land use changes (Park et al., 2024). The results indicate that wetlands not only perform conventional functions, such as biodiversity conservation, maintenance of hydrological cycles, and provision of aquatic cultural services, but also demonstrate particularly strong capacity for carbon storage and sequestration. This empirical evidence demonstrates that urban wetlands can serve as carbon sinks and climate regulation hubs in climate change response and regional GI management.
As such, while early GI research at the metropolitan scale primarily emphasized quantitative approaches, including GIS-based spatial analysis and hydrological modeling, recent studies have evolved toward hybrid frameworks that integrate socio-cultural analytical tools such as text mining and expert consultation. Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that GI at the metropolitan level operates as a comprehensive form of infrastructure, extending beyond the provision of green space to enhance urban resilience, address climate change, promote social equity, and improve overall quality of life. This suggests that GI research has moved beyond the assessment of single functions and is increasingly addressed within an integrated framework.
Municipal Level
At the municipal level, GI research has been actively conducted focusing on complex infrastructure systems— including low impact development (LID) facilities designed to restore water resource management and control non-point source pollution, as well as LU and LC, idle lands, rivers, and village wetlands—encompassing urban infrastructures, green spaces, and water resources (Table 2).
Studies focusing on urban LU and LC— including impervious surfaces, residential, commercial, industrial, and road areas—primarily employed GIS-based spatial analyses and evaluations of LID facility performance to assess the hydrological and water quality improvement effects of GI. The research methods applied in these studies included: derivation of ecological corridors using least-cost path analysis (Lee et al., 2012); assessment of nonpoint source pollution reduction effects and cost-effectiveness using the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), which simulates water cycle processes and nonpoint source pollution management (Lim et al., 2014); scenario-based verification of flood reduction effects using the LIDMOD3 model, designed to evaluate LID facility efficiency and nonpoint source pollution reduction (Lee and Kim, 2019b); comparison of LID facility performance through rainfall monitoring data and regression analysis (Im and Gil, 2022); and evaluation of water cycle–based urban planning using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), which predicts and analyzes rainfall, runoff, erosion, water quality, and soil, in combination with a geodesign framework (Lee and Kim, 2022). These analyses demonstrated that the implementation of LID facilities enhances both ecological and economic functions by reducing runoff from impervious surfaces, improving water quality, decreasing nonpoint source pollution, increasing evapotranspiration, and improving economic efficiency. Notably, the performance of LID facilities varied depending on their installation sites. Moreover, the findings of ecological corridor management suggested that maintaining landscape connectivity, rather than solely focusing individual green spaces, is a crucial factor in enhancing the effectiveness of GI.
Previous studies on green spaces, including urban parks and idle lands, have employed a range of methodologies— such as GIS analysis, field surveys, questionnaires, and simulation techniques—to investigate the social equity and ecological functions of GI. The research methods include the following. Park et al. (2007) compared park area, green space ratio, and vegetation coverage while assessing residents’ satisfaction. Yang et al. (2020) evaluated the impacts of GI on flooding and the urban heat island effect using the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method to estimate rainfall–runoff relationships, in combination with Monte Carlo simulations and Landsat imagery analysis. Jeong and Lim (2021) examined the potential conversion of idle lands into garden spaces through the development of a GIS database and citizen participation workshops. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that park accessibility and availability are key determinants of residents’ satisfaction. In contrast, exclusion from designated park districts intensifies the risk of flood runoff and the urban heat island effect, underscoring the negative impacts of insufficient GI. Moreover, transforming idle lands into parks or garden spaces was found to have the potential to enhance local community resilience and promote social cohesion.
Studies addressing water resources, including rivers and village wetlands, have applied analytical frameworks such as the InVEST-UFRM model, RAM/RAMS assessment methods, and expert consultation to develop evaluation frameworks and to verify the flood risk reduction effects of GI. The utilization of GI elements—such as rivers and adjacent green spaces—was shown to reduce the spatial extent of urban flood-prone areas and to alleviate overall flood risk (Sim and Koo, 2024). In addition, water resources such as wetlands were identified through RAM/RAMS assessments as possessing high ecological value and fulfilling critical ecosystem functions, including biodiversity enhancement, provision of spaces for waterfront cultural activities, support of hydrological circulation, carbon sequestration, groundwater maintenance and recharge, improvement of aesthetic and recreational quality, protection and enhancement of water quality, habitat provision, and erosion control (Park et al., 2022). Through these analyses, water resources, such as rivers and wetlands, were confirmed to contribute not only to essential ecological functions— including flood risk mitigation, water quality improvement, and carbon sequestration—but also to the enhancement of waterfront culture and community values at the neighborhood scale.
Taken together, municipal-level studies on GI initially focused on spatial analyses based on LU and LC data and impervious surface ratios, and subsequently progressed toward more specific spatial units, including LID facilities, urban parks, idle lands, village wetlands, and rivers. Beyond merely verifying physical effects, these studies increasingly emphasized the economic feasibility of GI by comparing the performance and economic efficiency of different LID facilities, or by demonstrating their cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, water resources were confirmed to function within the framework of GI, as hubs for waterfront cultural activities and climate change responses. In other words, GI has become established not only as a means of strengthening urban resilience, but also as a multifaceted infrastructure that encompasses economic efficiency as well as climatic and cultural benefits.
Sub-Municipal Level
At the sub-municipal level, a substantial body of research on GI has focused on neighborhood units that integrate urban green spaces with built-up facilities, including LU and LC, parking lots, roads, buildings, and agricultural areas (Table 3).
Studies examining the application of GI within urban infrastructure spaces—such as parking areas, roads, and buildings—have primarily demonstrated the effects of LID facilities in mitigating flood risk and reducing pollutant loads. In particular, the EPA SWMM LID model, often combined with LIDMOD3, has been applied to predict stormwater runoff and assess hydrological and water quality effects. Field installations of unit-based stormwater infiltration and retention facilities have been used to evaluate reductions in runoff volume and improvements in water quality. Small-scale LID techniques, including infiltration trenches, permeable pavements, and rainwater harvesting systems, proved effective in reducing peak flow and runoff volume (Lee et al., 2012; Lee and Kim, 2019b; Kim, 2020; Park and Ahn, 2024). Furthermore, GIS-based vulnerability assessments coupled with K-means clustering analyses have shown that strategically allocating green spaces in areas characterized by high concentrations of vulnerable populations and elevated air pollutant emissions can significantly enhance particulate matter reduction (Shin et al., 2021). In other words, these findings suggest that the integration of GI within urban infrastructure spaces can directly mitigate the challenges associated with impervious surfaces, while simultaneously improving the cost efficiency of existing sewer systems and strengthening urban air quality management.
Studies focusing on green spaces, including biotopes and agricultural lands, have examined the interactions between the land characteristics of GI and local climatic and hydrological environments. In particular, analyses employing land cover maps, fragmentation indices, and Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) to assess spatial autocorrelation suggested land-type-specific development and conservation strategies, as well as the application of both structural and non-structural GI approaches (Kim et al., 2014). Local Climate Zone (LCZ) analyses have demonstrated that parks, paddy fields, and waterfront areas play a significant role in mitigating urban thermal environments (Kong et al., 2020). In addition, studies focusing on agricultural lands have applied the MODSIM model, which simulates water flow and water quality under multiple scenarios, in conjunction with field monitoring, to verify the reliable supply of rainwater and reclaimed wastewater for greenhouse cultivation (Lim et al., 2021). These findings collectively indicate that GI is closely linked to land use patterns and agricultural practices, functioning as an effective mechanism for water resource management and urban heat mitigation.
Studies on small-scale GI, such as community gardens and green walls, have predominantly examined their cooling and carbon sequestration effects at localized sites. In particular, the cooling performance of green wall systems has been shown to vary depending on irrigation regimes and vegetation types, highlighting their potential role in mitigating localized urban heat (Kim et al., 2021). In addition, LiDAR-equipped drone monitoring has provided a precise method for quantifying the carbon storage capacity of small green spaces, such as community gardens, offering improved accuracy and efficiency over traditional survey approaches (Hong et al., 2025). These findings illustrate that GI is intimately connected to residents’ living environments and can provide tangible ecological benefits— including heat mitigation and carbon reduction—at the neighborhood scale; when integrated with vegetation, GI demonstrates enhanced precision and efficiency in delivering these environmental functions.
Accordingly, studies conducted at the sub-municipal scale have demonstrated that, within urban infrastructure systems, the spatial configuration and implementation of LID facilities are effective in mitigating flooding, reducing runoff, and improving air quality. Furthermore, GI has been identified as an integrated infrastructure framework that incorporates land-use management, agricultural activities, and vegetation. Taken together, these findings indicate that, at the neighborhood scale, GI extends beyond a conventional environmental management tool and can be effectively utilized as a practical alternative for urban management.
Methods Analysis
GIS-based spatial analysis
The Methods Analysis of this study aims to systematically classify the analytical methodologies employed in empirical GI research conducted in South Korea and to comprehensively examine the relationships among the spatial characteristics of study areas, GI types, and the functional effects validated through each method. Based on a scoping review of the selected literature, domestic GI research can be categorized into five methodological approaches according to research objectives and analytical scales: GIS-based spatial analysis; application of hydrological and environmental modeling; statistical analysis through indicator development; empirical research through field monitoring and experiments; and sociocultural approaches (Table 4). This classification was used as an analytical framework to compare and interpret the correspondences between methodological approaches and the functional effects of GI.
In the early stages of GI research, GIS-based spatial analysis was the predominant methodological approach. In GIS-based spatial analyses, some studies integrated land cover maps with continuous cadastral maps to assess spatial concordance (Park et al., 2018), while others applied fragmentation indices using the GUIDOS Toolbox and the Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) technique to identify areas suitable for land conservation or development (Kim et al., 2014). In addition, several studies utilized the Least Cost Path (LCP) analysis module in ArcGIS to evaluate the connectivity of major green corridors and to assess disruptions to ecological networks caused by road infrastructure (Lee et al., 2012; Han et al., 2020). Other approaches involved superimposing the spatial distributions of particulate matter (PM) emission sources and vulnerable population groups to identify high-risk areas, followed by K-means cluster analysis to propose typologies of green space location strategies (Shin et al., 2021). Overall, these GIS-based approaches have proven highly effective in revealing the spatial patterns, connectivity, and locational constraints of GI, thereby providing a fundamental analytical framework for the planning and management of urban green spaces.
Application of hydrological and environmental modeling
Since the 2010s, GI research has increasingly adopted hydrological and environmental modeling to quantitatively assess its impacts on water cycles and climatic conditions. Among these approaches, the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has been widely applied as a representative urban runoff simulation model. SWMM has been used to evaluate runoff reduction performance and the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution control achieved by various Low Impact Development (LID) modules, such as permeable pavements and bioretention systems (Lim et al., 2014; Park and Ahn, 2024). To address the limitations of SWMM in representing small-scale LID practices, LIDMOD3 was developed to enable more detailed simulations at finer spatial scales. This model has been employed to assess changes in urban impervious surfaces and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LID implementation strategies (Lee and Kim, 2019a; Lee and Kim, 2019b; Kim, 2020). The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a model designed to simulate soil and hydrological processes at a large watershed scale and has been applied in combination with geodesign frameworks to evaluate urban water cycle alternatives, enabling integrated assessments of stormwater runoff, soil water retention, and nutrient load reduction. (Lee and Kim, 2022). The MODSIM-based modeling approach applied a hydrological decision support system to analyze agricultural water supply–demand balance and rainwater storage capacity under different land-use scenarios, and empirically evaluated the water circulation performance of GI by validating model outputs against field-measured data obtained through pressure-based water level monitoring(Lim et al., 2021). The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model has been adopted to quantify the ecosystem services provided by GI. Specifically, the InVEST Urban Flood Risk Mitigation (UFRM) module estimates the spatial distribution of flood risk, while the InVEST Carbon module evaluates carbon storage and sequestration capacities (Sim, 2025; Sim and Koo, 2024; Lee et al., 2025). Furthermore, the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS–CN) method, which estimates rainfall–runoff relationships based on land-use and soil characteristics, has been extensively used to evaluate the runoff mitigation effects of GI in a simplified yet robust manner (Seo and Kim, 2015; Yang et al., 2020). These hydrological and environmental modeling approaches have quantitatively demonstrated the effectiveness of GI in flood mitigation, climate change mitigation, and air quality improvement, thereby establishing their role as predictive tools that support evidence-based policy decisions.
Statistical Analysis through Indicator Development
Research on GI has increasingly focused on the quantification and indicator-based evaluation of its effects to enhance comparability and strengthen policy applicability. The Rapid Assessment Method (RAM) has been widely employed as a tool for promptly evaluating the ecological, social, and environmental functions of individual wetlands. Building on this approach, the Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (RAMS) was developed in South Korea to extend and refine the original framework, thereby enabling systematic comparisons and analyses across multiple wetlands and improving its relevance for policy applications. Following reliability validation using Cronbach’s alpha, RAM/RAMS identified and structured key functional components— including biodiversity, hydrological regulation, carbon sequestration, and waterfront culture—through factor analysis (Park, 2022; Park, 2023; Park et al., 2024; Park and Koo, 2024). The Park Desert Index was developed as a quantitative indicator to assess park accessibility and equity. By integrating clustering techniques with social deprivation indices, this approach has been applied to diagnose spatial inequalities within urban environments (McCarty et al., 2024). Furthermore, Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) have been used to visualize causal relationships within socio-ecological systems, while GIS-based Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) methods have been applied to analyze spatial vulnerability and clarify the linkages between GI and air pollution (Lee et al., 2025). Collectively, these studies have advanced GI research beyond simple impact verification toward the development of evaluation frameworks, thereby providing quantitative foundations for both academic research and evidence-based policy decision-making.
Empirical research through field monitoring and experiments
Several studies have empirically validated the effectiveness of GI through field monitoring and experimental approaches, thereby addressing the limitations inherent in model-based analyses. A representative example is the monitoring of unit-based stormwater infiltration and storage systems installed in parking lots, where infiltration capacity, storage volume, and water quality were measured under various rainfall events to evaluate the actual hydrological performance of GI facilities (Lee et al., 2012). In addition, the runoff reduction efficiencies of LID facilities— including vegetated swales, vegetated filter strips, bioretention systems, and permeable pavement —were comparatively assessed using rainfall monitoring data and regression analyses. The results indicated that bioretention systems and permeable pavement exhibited relatively higher runoff reduction effects than other LID types (Im and Gil, 2022). To rigorously evaluate the climate mitigation potential of GI, LiDAR-equipped drone technology has been applied to measure carbon storage in urban gardens at high spatial resolution, achieving greater accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional ground-based surveys (Hong et al., 2025). Studies applying the Local Climate Zone (LCZ) classification conducted field measurements of nighttime summer microclimatic variables (net radiation, air temperature, humidity, and wind speed) and empirically examined differences in human thermal environments between green and gray infrastructure through PET estimation using RayMan Pro and statistical analysis with SPSS(Kong et al., 2020). Furthermore, empirical studies integrating thermal imaging cameras (Fluke Ti100) with photosynthesis meters have demonstrated vegetation-specific cooling effects associated with green wall systems (Kim et al., 2021). Taken together, these studies substantiated the effectiveness of GI with empirical data, thereby supporting the perceived environmental improvements by residents and enhancing the credibility of GI-related policies.
Sociocultural approaches
Recent studies have increasingly adopted qualitative methodologies to evaluate not only the physical effects of GI but also its implications for social equity and cultural value. A survey-based analysis of park satisfaction across various park types found that residents’ satisfaction was more strongly correlated with accessibility and usability than with the proportion of green space (Park et al., 2007). Additionally, expert consultations combined with field surveys were utilized to formulate management strategies for unimplemented neighborhood parks, demonstrating that both short- and long-term interventions should be customized to the unique characteristics of each park (Shin and Baek, 2020). Research investigating the conversion of idle municipal land into community gardens employed participatory citizen workshops to assess local communities’ latent role (Jeong and Lim, 2021). Furthermore, text mining and topic modeling techniques were applied to analyze shifts in park-use culture before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the role of GI as a social asset that supports recreation, public health, and psychological well-being ( Chae and Cho, 2021). Overall, these studies suggest that GI functions not merely as an environmental infrastructure but also as a social infrastructure that sustains community cohesion, equity, and cultural life.
GI Functions Across Analytical Contexts
This study closely examined the interrelationships among study areas, types of GI, methodological approaches, and functional outcomes in empirical GI research. The scoping review demonstrates that GI has evolved beyond merely addressing environmental issues, functioning as a multifunctional infrastructure that concurrently delivers ecological, social, and economic benefits. The interactions among study areas, types of GI, and methodological approaches were comprehensively analyzed, along with their respective relationships to functional effects (Fig. 3)
Spatial and Typological Perspectives on GI Functions
At the metropolitan level, research on GI has predominantly focused on large-scale, nature-based components, including green spaces, urban parks, and wetlands. These studies have primarily addressed the ecological and social functions of GI. Research on green spaces predominantly analyzed ecological functions—particularly flood damage mitigation and improvements in urban water circulation— using hydrological modeling approaches, while social functions, such as the enhancement of recreational activities, were examined through sociocultural approaches. Research on urban parks has commonly utilized statistical analyses through indicator development to examine a range of functions, with key analytical themes including improved accessibility, enhanced equity, carbon storage and sequestration, and ecosystem services. These studies generally integrated discussions of both the social value and ecological benefits of GI. Studies on wetlands likewise tended to identify equity enhancement and the strengthening of ecosystem services as core analytical focuses, with the social and ecological functions of GI being addressed as central research agendas.
At the municipal level, a substantial body of research examined the functions of GI from more specific and practical perspectives. Studies on LID facilities, permeable pavements, and urban parks primarily analyzed ecological and social functions using methods such as hydrological modeling, GIS-based analysis, and field monitoring. Research focusing on green spaces commonly addressed improvements in the residential environment as key analytical topics, with GIS analyses employed to examine enhanced green connectivity as a central function. Studies on urban parks frequently identified flood mitigation and the alleviation of the urban heat island effect as core analytical themes, underscoring the potential benefits provided by GI. Research on LID facilities explored functions including non-point source pollution reduction and cost reduction, while studies on permeable pavements primarily concentrated on flood reduction and the mitigation of pollution sources.
At the sub-municipal level, research primarily focused on smaller-scale, nature-based elements, including urban parks, biotopes, and gardens. These studies employed methods such as field monitoring, hydrological modeling, and GIS-based analyses to assess a range of GI functions. Studies on urban parks examined temperature reduction, particulate matter (PM) abatement, and carbon sequestration as key analytical topics, illustrating the contributions of small-scale GI to ecological and economic functions. Research on biotopes emphasized eco-friendly development potential, while studies on gardens focused on temperature regulation and PM reduction.
Overall, GI research demonstrated distinct functional emphases and analytical priorities across metropolitan, municipal, and sub-municipal levels. Across these scales, studies addressed GI in relation to ecological (e.g., flood mitigation, air quality improvement, and temperature regulation), social (e.g., accessibility, equity, and recreation), and economic (e.g., cost and resource efficiency) dimensions. The findings collectively indicate that an increasing body of research has approached GI not merely as the provision of green space, but as a critical mechanism associated with urban resilience, climate change adaptation, and social equity.
Methodological Perspectives on GI Functions
This study found that a wide range of research methods— including GIS-based spatial analysis, statistical analysis through indicator development, empirical research based on field monitoring and experiments, applications of hydrological and environmental modeling, and sociocultural approaches—have been employed in a complementary manner to investigate the functions of GI. The ecological, economic, and social functions of GI were examined from different perspectives depending on the methodological approach, indicating that research methods play a critical role in shaping analytical perspectives on GI functions.
Among these approaches, GIS-based spatial analysis was particularly effective for quantitatively examining the spatial structure and distributional characteristics of GI. Consequently, this method has been predominantly applied in studies addressing ecological functions—such as flood mitigation, enhancement of the water cycle, and particulate matter (PM) reduction—as well as social functions, including improved accessibility and spatial equity.
Statistical analysis through indicator development and empirical research through field monitoring and experiments both emphasize the establishment of quantitative evidence and have been primarily employed in studies focusing on ecological functions, including nonpoint source reduction, flood control, and mitigation of the urban heat island effect. Statistical analysis through indicator development have contributed to the development of standardized and comparable frameworks for evaluating GI performance, utilizing various indices such as RAM/RAMS and the Park Desert Index. In contrast, empirical research based on field monitoring and experiments has been mainly applied to assess the actual operational conditions and performance outcomes of GI through direct on-site observations and measurements.
Hydrological and environmental modeling approaches have been widely adopted to analyze not only the ecological functions of GI but also its economic dimensions, such as cost reduction and resource efficiency. Studies employing models such as SWMM, LIDMOD3, and SWAT have primarily focused on indicators related to flood mitigation and water cycle regulation, while simultaneously evaluating the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of implementing LID facilities..
Lastly, sociocultural approaches have predominantly addressed the social functions of GI by examining themes such as public participation, user satisfaction, community cohesion, and social equity. These approaches demonstrate how the significance of GI as a social asset and its sociocultural values are addressed within the research.
Overall, research methodologies tends to function less as tools for directly defining or verifying GI performance than as analytical frameworks that shape the perspective from which individual GI functions are examined. In other words, GIS-based spatial analysis primarily addresses GI functions in terms of spatial efficiency and social equity; statistical analysis through indicator development and empirical research based on field monitoring and experiments emphasize environmental performance; hydrological and environmental modeling approaches explore both environmental effectiveness and economic feasibility; and sociocultural approaches position social sustainability as the central analytical focus.
Discussion
This study reviewed and organized empirical research on green infrastructure (GI) conducted in South Korea, with a focus on differences in research locations, types of GI facilities, and analytical methods employed to examine GI functions. The analysis revealed that domestic GI research has largely emerged in response to urban environmental challenges, and that the functions of GI have been addressed differently depending on regional contexts and methodological approaches. These results suggest that GI should be understood not merely as a concept of installing green spaces or facilities, but as a practical element for urban environmental management and the enhancement of urban livability.
Empirical studies on GI have been predominantly concentrated on the Seoul Metropolitan Area and other major cities. This concentration can be attributed to the relatively high accessibility of essential research data in these regions, including high-resolution land cover, meteorological, and hydrological datasets, as well as the prevalence of pressing urban environmental issues such as flooding and the urban heat island effect. Accordingly, studies of GI in the Seoul Metropolitan Area have emphasized its environmental functions, particularly flood mitigation, particulate matter (PM) reduction, and improvements in urban water cycles. In contrast, empirical studies of GI in small- and medium-sized cities or local cities remain limited, and relatively few have examined the actual performance of GI under localized conditions. This imbalance suggests that existing GI research outcomes may be biased toward specific urban contexts, emphasizing the need for comparative studies of GI performance across cities of varied scales and characteristics.
Differences were also found in the types of GI facilities examined according to the spatial scale of analysis. At the large-city scale, studies primarily focused on expansive green infrastructure elements such as urban parks, wetlands, and large green spaces, with an emphasis on broad environmental functions including carbon sequestration, stormwater regulation, and urban temperature mitigation. At the mid-sized city scale, research more frequently addressed implementable and manageable installations, such as permeable pavements and low impact development (LID) systems. These studies tended to emphasize practical performance outcomes, including reductions in nonpoint source pollution, maintenance costs, and installation efficiency. At smaller spatial scales, studies examined specific park zones, small gardens, and biotopes, assessing functions that are directly perceptible to residents, such as microclimate regulation, PM reduction, and user satisfaction. These differences indicate that the functions and benefits of GI vary substantially depending on spatial scale and modes of application.
Studies on GI also demonstrate clear methodological trends in analytical approaches. GIS-based spatial analyses have been widely applied to quantitatively assess the location, distribution, accessibility, and spatial inequities of GI in urban contexts. Hydrological and environmental modeling approaches have been used to estimate ecosystem services such as flood mitigation, runoff reduction, and changes in infiltration capacity, whereas field monitoring has directly measured physical changes and performance at actual sites, thereby complementing and validating modeling results. In addition, indicator-based statistical analyses have structured environmental performance into comparable numerical metrics, while sociocultural approaches have emphasized residents’ experiences of GI use, including participation, accessibility, and degrees of publicness. Since each methodological approach captures distinct dimensions of GI, no single method is sufficient to comprehensively explain the full range of GI functions.
GI research has shown a strong tendency to categorize and analyze GI according to discrete functional domains. Environmental functions have been predominantly examined through modeling and monitoring approaches, spatial effects through GIS-based analyses, and social functions through surveys and participatory field studies. As a result, relatively few studies have explicitly explored inter-functional linkages, such as the ways in which flood mitigation may be associated with improved accessibility, or how the mitigation of urban heat-island effects may contribute to enhanced living conditions for specific social groups. This body of work therefore tends to report research outcomes in functionally fragmented ways, despite the fact that multiple GI functions often emerge simultaneously through real-world implementation processes.
Taken together, existing GI research has largely evolved in response to environmental challenges, with GI functions being addressed differently depending on urban scale, facility type, and analytical method. Rather than interpreting GI functions as isolated effects, there is a growing need to understand them in an integrated manner that simultaneously considers the spatial scale of implementation, surrounding urban conditions, and management regimes.
Strategies for Expanding GI in South Korea
The trends identified in the empirical studies on GI reviewed in this research offer important implications for defining strategic directions for the future implementation and dissemination of GI in South Korea.
First, to address regional imbalances in the existing body of research, it is necessary to strengthen the research foundation on GI in Non-Seoul metropolitan area. Although small- and medium-sized cities outside the capital region are increasingly confronted with climate- and environment-related challenges associated with ongoing urbanization, empirical studies focusing on these regions remain limited. The development of decentralized GI strategies and region-specific application models that account for local climatic, topographical, and socioeconomic conditions is essential.
Second, as previous studies have predominantly emphasized the ecological functions of GI, future expansion efforts should adopt a more multidimensional perspective that also incorporates social and economic dimensions. In particular, it is important to establish evaluation frameworks that integrate social considerations—such as accessibility, equity, publicness, and the enhancement of user activities— together with economic factors, including cost-effectiveness, operation, and maintenance. Such integrative evaluation criteria can facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of GI as a multifunctional form of spatial infrastructure that delivers a wide range of urban benefits.
Third, from a methodological standpoint, there is a growing need for integrative research approaches that combine hydrological and environmental modeling, GIS-based spatial analysis, field monitoring, and sociocultural analyses in a complementary manner. Employing this multi-method approach would enable the development of analytical frameworks capable of simultaneously examining GI functions across spatial, environmental, and social dimensions, thereby providing more robust and holistic insights into the nature of GI implementation.
In summary, strategies for expanding GI should move beyond singular functional objectives or isolated research methods. Instead, they should synthesize findings from accumulated studies across multiple spatial scales, functional domains, and application contexts. This perspective underscores the importance of addressing GI not merely as a single-purpose green space facility, but as a multifunctional infrastructure capable of performing diverse roles under varying urban environmental conditions. Future GI research, grounded in this view, can thus contribute to broadening the scope of GI applications and enhancing their practical usability based on empirical findings.
Conclusion
This study systematically reviewed empirical research on green infrastructure (GI) conducted in South Korea, with a focus on how variations in spatial scale, types of GI facilities, and research methodologies influence the ways in which GI functions are addressed. Relevant studies were collected from the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), a major Korean academic database, and the units of analysis were classified into three spatial scales: metropolitan, municipal, and sub-municipal. Analytical approaches applied at each scale were further grouped into five methodological categories: GIS-based spatial analysis; statistical analysis through indicator development; empirical studies involving field monitoring and experimentation; hydrological and environmental modeling; and sociocultural approaches. The patterns of methodological utilization across spatial scales were then examined. Through these procedures, this study identified the specific urban conditions, target GI facilities, and methodologies under which empirical research on GI has been conducted.
The analysis revealed a clear tendency in Korean GI research to prioritize environmental functions. Functions such as flood mitigation, enhancement of the urban water cycle, mitigation of the urban heat island effect, and reduction of particulate matter (PM) were repeatedly examined, reflecting the influence of the climate crisis and urban environmental challenges on the direction of GI research in South Korea. In contrast, social and economic functions were examined to a limited extent. User-experience factors, such as accessibility, patterns of user activity, and publicness, as well as economic factors, including cost efficiency and maintenance burdens, received relatively little attention. These findings indicate that GI research in South Korea had focused on specific functions, while insufficiently addressing the more diverse range of functions that GI is capable of providing.
The ways in which GI functions were addressed varied according to research subjects and spatial scales. At the metropolitan scale, large-scale infrastructures such as urban parks, waterfront green spaces, and regional green axes were the primary subjects of study. Research at this level mainly focused on citywide environmental management and related functions, including stormwater management and urban temperature regulation. At the municipal scale, facilities with clearly defined installation and management units—such as permeable pavements and low-impact development (LID) systems—were the main focus. Analyses at this scale tended to emphasize practical considerations, including pollutant reduction, maintenance costs, and facility efficiency. At the sub-municipal scale, smaller spatial units, such as specific areas within parks, pocket gardens, and biotopes, were investigated. Studies at this level predominantly examined functions associated with residents’ lived experiences, including perceived temperature changes and user satisfaction. This pattern indicates that GI functions operate differently depending on spatial scale, and that research approaches have correspondingly adapted their functional focus according to the scale of implementation.
Research methodology was also identified as a critical factor shaping how GI functions are addressed. GIS-based GIS-based spatial analysis was primarily used to quantitatively assess the distribution, accessibility, and spatial equity of GI, contributing to the indirect understanding of how spatial configuration affects the living environment. Hydrological and environmental modeling was applied to simulate hydrological processes such as runoff volume, infiltration, and flood mitigation. Empirical research through field monitoring and experiments, provided direct measurements of physical changes following GI implementation, complementing model-based results. Statistical analysis through indicator development offered a structured numerical framework for comparing multiple functions, while sociocultural approaches examined the social dimensions of GI, including user experiences, accessibility, and community engagement. These distinctions indicate that each methodological lens frames GI functionality in different ways. Consequently, evaluating a single function using a single method may provide a limited understanding of GI’s applicability.
However, this study has the following limitations in the processes of data collection and analysis. First, since the literature search was confined to the domestic academic database RISS, studies on Korean GI published in international journals or conducted through international collaborations may have been omitted. Second, as GI is a composite concept integrating both “green” and “infrastructure,” reliance on a single search term may have excluded alternative or closely related concepts that are commonly used in GI research in South Korea.
Accordingly, future research should expand both the analytical scope and the conceptual range, including the use of broader and more diverse search keywords, to enable a more comprehensive review of empirical GI studies. By conducting comparative analyses of GI research using both domestic and international databases, future studies will be able to reassess trends in domestic research within the broader context of global scholarly discourse. Furthermore, a comprehensive literature review that incorporates GI-related concepts would enable a more accurate understanding of the functions and meanings that GI performs. Furthermore, given that existing studies have largely concentrated on the Seoul metropolitan area—potentially reflecting biases toward specific urban contexts—comparative analyses across cities of varying scales and diverse regional settings are warranted. Such approaches would contribute to a more context-sensitive understanding of how GI operates in real-world urban environments.
Overall, GI research in South Korea has played a significant role in addressing urban environmental challenges and has examined GI functions in diverse ways according to research scale, facility type, and analytical approach. By systematically synthesizing these empirical trends, this study underscores that GI should be understood not as a single-function facility, but as a foundational urban component that is employed in multiple ways to enhance urban environments and quality of life. Future research that integrates ecological functions with social experiences, economic costs, and management conditions could offer a more multidimensional perspective on the practical applications of GI. Findings from such efforts are expected to provide a critical basis for conceptualizing GI as a form of spatial infrastructure that strengthens urban sustainability and resilience.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
