Which citizenship do you mean? The case of the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex in Seoul

Abstract

Although applying a specific perspective (e.g. energy citizenship) provides valuable information about citizens’ actions in relation to energy issues, confining their actions into just one category risks limiting our knowledge. This paper explores this hypothesis through a case study of residents’ energy-related activities at the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex in Seoul. This research compares four citizenship types with Andrew Dobson’s categories and applies them all to the case study. This research yields the following findings. The Seokkwan case appears to have a mixture of all the citizenship characteristics discussed in this paper. The case study shows that only the concept of sustainability citizenship is suitable for explaining both rights and responsibilities. Although the case study only focuses on the private sphere, residents’ activities clearly had public implications, which are characteristics of all the types of citizenship. Regarding territoriality and nonterritoriality, aspects of ecological, sustainability, and energy citizenships appear only weakly. The case study reveals virtues of all citizenships. This case study reveals that the hypothesis is correct: we should be cautious about applying only a particular type of citizenship to a diverse case study.

Keywords

Ecological citizenship energy citizenship environmental citizenship sustainability citizenship the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex

Introduction

Building an environmentally sustainable society is closely related to the mobilization of citizens and local communities.¹ Such mobilization is unlikely to be achieved merely through legal instruments and economic incentives. Rather, mobilization occurs when citizens are inspired to act voluntarily by environmental virtues they have accepted.² In other words, market incentives work to the extent that they modify citizens’ perception of their own self-interest, but they do not transform their attitudes to favor behavior that is environmentally responsible as part of their concept of good citizenship.³

Citizens’ responses to environmental crises have often been explained under the concepts of environmental citizenship,⁴ ecological citizenship,^5,6 sustainability citizenship,⁷ and energy citizenship.⁸ In South Korea, citizens’ activities in the energy sector, as opposed to responses to crises, have most often been explained from the perspective of energy citizenship^9–11 or ecological citizenship.¹² Although applying a particular perspective (usually energy citizenship) provides a useful viewpoint regarding citizens’ actions in relation to energy issues, framing citizens’ actions with just one category risks limiting our knowledge. This paper explores this hypothesis through a case study of residents’ energy-related activities at the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex in Seoul. This case was chosen for two reasons: first, it is one of the largest successful energy-related activities in Seoul, in terms of the number of citizens involved and, second, this success story has affected energy-related activities at many other apartment complexes in Seoul.

The first section of this article discusses the aforementioned concepts of citizenship. It then studies the case of the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex, drawing on in-depth interviews with resident representatives of its energy movement and NGOs, as well as documents produced by the apartment complex, NGOs, local governments, and newspapers. Next, it analyzes the case study from the perspectives of different citizenship concepts. Finally, the paper concludes with insights learned, limitations of the research, and suggestions for future research.

Environmental, ecological, sustainability, and energy citizenship

Citizenship in relation to environmental and energy issues has been discussed using the concepts of environmental citizenship, ecological citizenship, sustainability citizenship, and energy citizenship. Modern ecological crises prompted the development of a new paradigm for describing the relationship between humans and the environment; the first three new citizenship concepts developed out of these discussions, while energy citizenship emerged more recently. Environmental citizenship expands the concept of citizenship beyond political rights, or the right to social services, to include the right to protect one’s health from environmental pollution. Ecological citizenship adds responsibility for future generations and nonhuman species. These new conceptions of citizenship have influenced debates about climate change and energy issues.¹⁰

This section compares all of these citizenship types with Andrew Dobson’s⁵ categories: “rights and obligations, territorial and non-territorial conceptions of citizenship, the public and the private arenas as possible sites of citizenship activity, and competing virtue”⁵ (p. 37).

Rights and responsibilities

Environmental citizenship “refers to attempts to extend the discourse and practice of rights-claiming into the environmental context”⁵ (p. 89). In environmental citizenship, rights are part of the social contract between the state and those citizens who have concerns about environmental issues.⁴ Environmental citizenship also emphasizes “a relationship of reciprocity between citizens”⁴ (p. 172) as citizens have certain responsibilities with respect to other citizens’ environmental rights. Sustainability citizenship requires that “citizens challenge dominant state and economic actors, processes, and institutions”⁷ (p. 33). This implies that citizens do not merely have the right to insist that the state make society more sustainable, but also have a positive obligation to follow through with such demands⁷ (p. 33). Meanwhile, energy citizenship emphasizes equitable rights and responsibilities in relation to energy production and consumption, especially emphasizing the public as active stakeholders in creating a new energy system.⁸ It demands that policy makers fully engage the public in ensuring that technological developments result in a social system that protects the environment and yields an equitable quality of life⁸ (p. 78).

Unlike these citizenship types, ecological citizenship emphasizes not rights but “the self-imposing duties of the citizen”² (p. 63). Ecological citizens’ responsibilities overcome both time and space because they care about future generations, as well as people and ecosystems not only in their own location but also elsewhere.⁵ Ecological citizenship uses the ecological footprint as a tool to decide who has more responsibilities since “it is both an expression of the space of ecological citizenship and a way of framing decisions as to the direction of citizenship responsibilities.”⁵ Obligations in ecological citizenship are not reciprocal or contractual because the ecological footprint concept helps us recognize that we affect others.²

The public and private arenas

Environmental citizenship addresses environmental rights in the public sphere.^4,5 It acknowledges that every act by a citizen has a public impact.¹³ Like environmental citizenship, ecological citizenship highlights that citizens’ actions in their private spheres, such as at home, have public impact.⁵ Since sustainability citizenship challenges dominant state and economic paradigms, it “engage[s] with the underlying global capitalist political economy of the state, economy, and culture”⁷ (p. 35), which is based on actions in the public sphere. Furthermore, it also encourages citizens to live their private lives “by the principles and practices of sustainability”⁷ (p. 35). Under energy citizenship, people who are concerned about the consequences of energy production and consumption demand the creation of a decentralized energy system. This affects both the public and private spheres.⁸

Territorial and nonterritorial conceptions of citizenship

Environmental citizenship is only concerned about issues within a nation-state or individual country; therefore, it is “a territorial notion of citizenship”⁴ (p. 172). On the contrary, ecological citizenship does not limit citizens’ concerns to national boundaries because the space of ecological citizenship is “produced by the metabolistic and material relationship of individual people with their environment”⁵ (p. 106). Ecological citizenship is also called “a citizenship of strangers” because “we are strangers not only to each other, but to each other’s place, and even time”⁵ (p. 106). The concept of the ecological footprint requires us to not be strangers to each other, each other’s place, and even each other’s time.⁵ The sustainability and energy citizenship concepts are quite similar to ecological citizenship in how they address territorial and nonterritorial conceptions of citizenship. Because sustainability citizenship is focused on problems associated with unsustainable development, it can look beyond national territories. Energy citizenship is a more territorial concept because energy citizens support decentralized and smaller scale energy infrastructure⁸ that is based on territorial domains within national boundaries and even within very small local boundaries. It also addresses nonterritorial conceptions of citizenship because it particularly focuses on climate change beyond territorial boundaries.⁸

Citizenship virtues

The virtues of environmental citizenship include “the liberal ones of reasonableness and a willingness to accept the force of the better argument and procedural legitimacy.”⁵ Ecological citizenship, on the other hand, embraces justice, care, compassion, and taking responsibility for the vulnerable as its virtues.⁵ Hayward's⁶ categories of ecological citizenship virtues may be challenged because his virtues are not ecological. Hayward⁶ suggests that resourcefulness should be considered a virtue of ecological citizenship: “While the good ecological citizen will have various moral and civic virtues, what makes the good citizen a good ecological citizen, above all, is the virtue of resourcefulness” (p. 443).

Resourcefulness, although an “inner” quality, matters in an ecological context. Practices that harm the environment often stem from transforming things that have an inherent value into “mere resources.” Resourcefulness counters that tendency and adds a sense of justice. Resourcefulness uses human capabilities to reduce consumption and thereby ease the pressure on the natural world⁶ (p. 442).

Sustainability citizenship embraces not only environmental actions but also the economic, social, political, and cultural spheres. While ecological citizenship embraces justice, care, compassion, and resourcefulness as virtues, sustainability citizenship mainly focuses on the virtue of justice. Sustainable citizens not only “recognize injustice” but also seek “remedy through appropriate political action”⁷ (p. 32). Energy citizenship pays attention to equity and justice “in relation to siting controversies as well as fuel poverty and, finally, the potential for (collective) energy actions, including acts of consumption and the setting up of community renewable energy projects such as energy co-operatives”⁸ (p. 72). It also embraces “biospheric and altruistic” values⁸ (p. 79).

Governance that emphasizes the participation of ordinary citizens in decision making about energy consumption and production is another crucial virtue of energy citizenship. Energy citizenship distinguishes centralized and decentralized energy systems. In a centralized energy system, energy is generated by large-scale infrastructure, and energy users are far away from each other.¹⁴ In this system, the public is not able to participate in decision making—experts are the only legitimate decision makers.⁸ On the contrary, a decentralized energy system promotes local and small-scale technologies and frequently uses renewable energy sources.¹⁵ Policy makers in this system try to pursue a social consensus among all stakeholders.⁸ Energy citizens support this system and act as a public that actively participates in decision making about energy production and consumption. Citizens in this system focus on whether or not decisions seem fair or legitimate. They also believe their responsibility extends beyond their immediate community to include future generations and the environment as a whole⁸ (p. 77). They show a keen interest in new energy technologies and engage individually and collectively to shape their impact on individuals, governments, and the environment⁸ (p. 77). Along with governance, energy citizenship emphasizes the virtue of trust. Local initiatives for pursuing a decentralized energy system need to obtain the trust of the members of the local community.¹⁶

The case of the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex

Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex comprises 25 buildings with 1998 households. Its residents began engaging in voluntary energy saving activities in 2010. They started the “Jeoljeonso (Power Saving Place)” movement in association with an environmental NGO, Green Korea United (nogsaekyeonhap in Korean), and the Seongbuk gu (district) office. The movement focused on energy saving activities, including energy-related facility improvements in the apartment complex.¹⁷

From the beginning, the movement behind these energy saving activities was led by Jaechul Shim, an ordinary company employee who moved to this complex in 2005. Many residents asked Shim to chair the meetings of resident representatives after they found out that he was interested in the complex’s various issues. However, to move forward as head, he needed to solve a problem:

There had been sharp conflicts between residents about deciding whether the apartment complex would continue to have a centralized heating system or change to an individualized heating system. I thought that I had to give enough time for the entire apartment community to reconcile and reunite them as a community. Thus, I did two things in the first six months. The first was to set up a regular meeting schedule so any resident could predict when representative meetings would be held. The second was to completely open the decision-making process to all apartment residents. All of our discussions were broadcast through the apartment TV channel to every single household. Some people just stopped by our meetings to let us hear their voices. As residents watched the decision-making process, they were assured that the process was transparent and that the head and other representatives were honest and sincere about what they were doing. As time went by, residents slowly began to trust our decisions and trust among residents that was once broken due to previous sharp conflicts was regained. (Shim, J., 2017, interview by author, 5 April)

The rebuilt trust among the residents might not be enough to explain what Seokkwan apartment complex achieved later. Shim and other representatives conducted other experiments to return political power to the residents:

One particular apartment management company had managed this apartment complex for 10 years, even though there were various problems. Thus, when we had to enter a contract with a management company, we invited at least two candidate management companies. We asked them to explain how they would provide their services for residents. Their presentations were broadcast through cable TV to the residents. We asked the residents to vote on the management company. We were finally able to change the 10-year management company to a new one. Personally, I think that this experience is a perfect example of returning power to the residents or empowering the residents, because they can decide what kind of apartment they want to live in. (Shim, J., 2017, interview by author, 5 April)

Another resident representative agreed with Shim’s comment: “When we have meetings, we have a democratic decision-making process. Through these kinds of process, we seem to have self-awareness as democratic citizens” (Building 122 representative 2017, interview by author, 28 May).

Shim suggested that the lights in the underground parking lot, which consumed a lot of power, should be replaced by light-emitting diodes (LEDs), as should some 82 streetlights on the complex.¹⁸ The apartment complex, which had been built in 1998, reduced its electricity consumption by about 30% compared to the previous year due to the replacement of lights with LEDs. While arguing that “forcing people into discomfort, and nagging them does not lead to lasting energy savings” (Shim, J., 2017, interview by author, 5 April), Shim provided simple electricity saving classes to residents in July and August every year. In order to encourage them to attend, he provided a 10,000 won gift certificate that could only be used at the apartment complex. He distributed a pamphlet containing energy conservation guidelines to each household and provided a prize worth 200,000 won for the household that saved the most electricity. Financial support for his energy projects came from grants offered by the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG). In the educational pamphlet, Mr Shim recommended six ways that apartment residents could save electricity: when not using them, turn off the power to the air conditioner, microwave oven, water purifier, computer, and IPTV set-top box; set the TV power saving mode to four levels; and finally, set the freezer to −17°C and the refrigerator to 4°C.¹⁸ Only 25 households did so in 1998, but now about 1000 households participate in energy saving activities.¹⁹ Shim argues that “It is not important how much we save electricity. How many people participate is much more important” (Shim, J., 2017, interview by author, 5 April).

Green Korea United played an important role as an intermediary organization in spreading the word about the Seokkwan Doosan apartment case in Seongbuk gu. This environmental NGO received project funds from the SMG to educate the head managers of many apartment complexes in Seongbuk gu. The Seokkwan apartment case was publicized through these kinds of educational activities, which played an important role in supplying LEDs to Seoul’s apartment complexes (Shin, G., 2017, interview by author, 28 April). An energy campaigner from this NGO mentioned that the Seokkwan Doosan apartment case is unique:

While one person or a very small group of people do something at other apartment complexes, 10 or 100 people walk together at this apartment. While a small group of people treat all others as people who they have to teach or educate (in other words, objectifying others) at other apartment complexes, Mr. Shim designed a model in which every resident can participate at the Seokkwan Doosan apartment complex. Residents of this apartment have worked hard. Energy saving became a natural thing for the residents to do. Since everything had been already set up for energy saving, they did not need to take further action. While other apartment complexes are busy advertising their energy saving achievements, residents at this apartment simply say that energy saving is just a living, nothing special. (Shin, G., 2017, interview by author, 28 April)

Beyond playing a role in promoting LED installation projects at many apartment complexes in Seoul, residents of this particular complex taught them an important lesson about how to treat their guards, who are often exposed to maltreatment, earn extremely low incomes, and are easily laid off. Residents of the Doosan apartment building decided to raise their guards’ wages and guarantee their jobs. Residents started to save money on electricity since 2010, so they did not have to reduce the guards’ wages. Residents have tried to coexist with the security workers:

Since we had reduced our maintenance fees a lot through energy saving, it does not seem right to pay less money to security guards. For example, although they work 12 hours a day, by allowing them more break time (let’s say 4 hours), they are only paid for 8 hours although they are actually not taking a break for the other 4 hours. We are one community. If something is not good for our security guards, it is not good for residents in the apartment complex. When we needed to renew our contract with the company that hired our safety workers, there was a case of a security guard’s suicide due to a resident’s harsh insult at another apartment complex in Seoul. We all discussed what to do with our guards at our representative meetings and decided to raise their salaries and secure their jobs. (Building 106 representative, 2017, interview by author, 28 May)

In 2011, they signed a contract with a company and added provisions guaranteeing the employment of guards. When dismissing guards after a three-month probation period, they were forced to obtain the residents’ consent.¹⁹ After the residents changed their attitudes toward electricity after many years of experiments and education, the apartment complex began to install PV panels on the apartments’ balconies (Shim, J., 2017, interview by author, 5 April). Over the last three years, 150 households have installed PV panels on their balconies (Building 122 representative, 2017, interview by author, 28 May).

After receiving much attention from the local government, the mass media, and the citizens of Seoul, the residents have been often asked if they want to act beyond their boundaries. In interviews conducted with eight resident representatives on 28 May 2017, most of them responded negatively because they felt that they as ordinary housewives did not have much time for outside energy-related activities. A Green Korea United campaigner added the following:

Residents at this apartment do not want to actively participate in the energy policy decision-making processes of Seongbuk gu and the Seoul Metropolitan Government. They do not advertise what they have done as environmental actions that protect the global environment or respond to climate change, because energy saving is just a living for them. They do not go beyond what they have done. They do not want to go beyond their apartment boundary. (Shin, G., 2017, interview by author, 28 April)

This comment is only partially correct: Citizens outside this apartment complex who were exposed to mass media or the local government’s energy-related events have visited it and learned about what the residents did to save energy. The Seokkwan case became an important model for energy saving activities at other Seoul apartment complexes, such as installing LEDs in public areas. This proves that the residents’ actions have already gone beyond their apartment’s boundaries. They still continue to maintain their so-called ordinary but eco- and energy-friendly lifestyles:

We, as ordinary housewives, feel shy about presenting what we have done in our apartment in front of the public. If not asked to make presentations, we are willing to participate in meetings organized by local governments if they and other citizens want to hear our opinions. Although Mr. Shim moved out of our apartment, we still organize annual energy festivals in our apartment complex and participate in proposing many ideas to have eco-friendly lives. We now extend our efforts to save water with the Seoul Metropolitan Government. We joined an SMG program through which we save water and send it to African countries. (Building 107 representative, 2017, interview by author, 28 May)

Discussion

The Seokkwan case appears to feature a mixture of characteristics from all of the aforementioned citizenship types. First, regarding rights and responsibilities, it seems quite difficult to categorize this case into just one type of citizenship. As seen in the interviews with representatives of this apartment complex, their actions were initially not based on rights or obligations: The residents acted to save on their electricity bills. However, over time, the rights described in the citizenship types were exercised by the residents. The residents were active stakeholders who were interested in the equitable rights of all residents in the process of energy system evolution, such as choosing a centralized or decentralized heating system. Thus, time may be an important factor when it comes to residents exercising their rights. On the other hand, the case study does not show that the residents felt responsibility toward other people or other species across time and space. They did not initially act out of concern for other people or species in other places, and they still do not. Thus, it could be said that the case study only illustrates the rights, not the responsibilities, that the environmental, ecological, and energy citizenship concepts emphasize. In the meantime, the case study shows that a sense of responsibility did develop regarding the guards. This would fall under sustainability citizenship, which demands that we pay keen attention to social justice. Thus, if we look at only the rights and responsibility aspects, the case study only satisfies the concepts of sustainability citizenship.

Regarding the private and public spheres, the case study is very interesting. Although it only focuses on the private sphere, the residents’ activities clearly had public implications, which are characteristic of all types of citizenship. In terms of territoriality, the Seokkwan case seems to satisfy only environmental citizenship, because residents exercised their citizenship very much within their own boundaries. Although citizens in this case study focused on their own territory, the publicizing of their energy-related activities by environmental NGOs, the Seongbuk gu office, and the SMG contributed to changes in other apartment complexes and thus overcame the territorial boundary. Because the case study satisfies both territorial and nonterritorial aspects, it can be categorized under ecological, sustainability, and energy citizenships. One should also note that overcoming the territorial boundary occurred indirectly, so it can be said that ecological, sustainability, and energy citizenships occur only weakly in this case study in terms of territoriality.

By ensuring that the residents have an open decision-making process, the Seokkwan case clearly shows procedural legitimacy, a virtue of environmental citizenship, as well as democracy, good governance, and participation, virtues of sustainability citizenship. In particular, by trying to correct injustices prevalent in an apartment complex by giving guards break times and refusing to lay them off, the case study reveals justice, another core value of sustainability citizenship. Furthermore, it can be said that the residents unconsciously challenged a dominant economic paradigm, based on the idea of “saving maintenance fees” at all Seoul apartment complexes. However, it seems too much to argue that the residents exercised what Barry calls the “resistance work” of sustainability citizenship⁷ (p. 32). Furthermore, as Dobson⁵ suggests, what the residents did can be explained through the domains of justice, care, compassion, and responsibility for a vulnerable group, which appear among ecological citizenship’s virtues.

Is another virtue of ecological citizenship, resourcefulness, evident in this case study? The Seokkwan case shows “the development and exercise of human capacities”⁶ (p. 442) because the residents’ knowledge about energy was enhanced through educational programs led by apartment complex representatives. The case also fulfills “part of the substance of a good human life”⁶ (p. 442) through rebuilding trust and creating cooperation among residents. The residents also tried to ease “pressure on finite natural phenomena that are needed as resources in roughly inverse proportion to resourcefulness”⁶ (p. 442) through energy saving activities. Therefore, the case shows the essence of resourcefulness, an essential characteristic of ecological citizenship. Governance and trust as virtues of energy citizenship are also evident in this case study. The governance structure at this apartment complex, which made it possible to have a transparent decision-making process in which every resident could participate, was established by its own leaders. Putting this governance system in place helped with gaining trust; they complement each other in this case study. The case study reveals virtues from all the aforementioned citizenship types.

As discussed in this section, the energy-related activities of the citizens at this apartment complex do not display only one type of citizenship. The case study reveals that characteristics of different citizenship types appear, while others do not. Furthermore, because the residents increasingly exercised their rights over time, time is also an important factor in the appearance of certain types of citizenship. It is too simple to argue that the citizens’ actions follow the characteristics of one type of citizenship. Thus, we should approach case studies with caution when applying a particular type of citizenship. Utilizing just one concept in analyzing a certain case study might not be appropriate.

Conclusion

This paper attempted to understand the Seokkwan apartment complex case study from the perspectives of the environmental, ecological, sustainability, and energy citizenship concepts. If this case study were analyzed only from the perspective of energy citizenship, which is frequently used for the analysis of citizens’ energy-related activities in Korea, it would miss some of the interesting and important lessons that case studies can provide in understanding citizens’ actions in the energy sector. Thus, the case study teaches us to not limit ourselves to just one concept for understanding citizens’ energy-saving activities. Although this paper provides important information about a particular social phenomenon, it still lacks the much deeper understanding of this case study that would be gained by conducting a detailed survey of individual residents at this apartment complex. Therefore, it would be meaningful if a detailed survey of all residents could be conducted in the future to find out why they took certain actions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the 2017 Research Fund of the University of Seoul.

Taehwa Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of Urban Administration at the University of Seoul, Korea. Before joining UOS, Dr. Lee served as a researcher at the Environmental Planning Institute at Seoul National University and as a research professor at the Institute for Legal Studies at Yonsei University. Dr. Lee's main research area is urban energy and environmental policy.

References

Van der Schoor

et al . Challenging obduracy: how local communities transform the energy system. Energy Res Soc Sci 2016; 13: 94–105.

Connelly

The virtues of environmental citizenship. In: Dobson

Bell

(eds) Environmental citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006, pp.49–74.

Dobson

Bell

Introduction. In: Dobson

Bell

(eds) Environmental citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006, pp.1–17.

Humphreys

Environmental and ecological citizenship in civil society. Int Spectator 2009; 44: 171–183.

Dobson

Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Hayward

Ecological citizenship: justice, rights and the virtue of resourcefulness. Environ Politics 2006; 15: 435–446.

Barry

Resistance is fertile: from environmental to sustainability citizenship. In: Dobson

Bell

(eds) Environmental citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006, pp.21–48.

Devine-Wright

Energy citizenship: psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In: Murphy

(ed.) Governing technology for sustainability. London: Earthscan, 2007, pp.63–86.

Hong

D-H

Lee

Y-H.

Energy movements and the typology of energy citizenship in Korea. ECO 2014; 18: 7–44.

10.

Park

The state and tasks for energy cooperatives in Korea: from the perspective of energy citizenship. ECO 2015; 19: 173–211.

11.

Park

Yun

S-J.

The formation process of energy citizenship in urban community energy transition movements seen through the case of SUNGDAEGOL village in Seoul. Korean Assoc Space Environ Res 2016; 26: 79–38.

12.

Cho

Yun

S-J.

Learning ecological citizenship through the process of energy transition movements: based on a qualitative case study on an energy self-sufficient village in Gwanak-gu, Seoul. Korean Assoc Space Environ Res 2016; 26: 190–228.

13.

Dobson

Environmental citizenship: towards sustainable development. Sustain Dev 2007; 15: 276–285.

14.

Bouffard

Kirschen

DS.

Centralized distributed electricity systems. Energy Policy 2008; 36: 4504–4508.

15.

Gardner

Ashworth

Towards the intelligent grid: a review of the literature. In: Droege

(ed.) Urban energy transition: from fossil fuels to renewable power. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008, pp.283–307.

16.

Van der Schoor

Scholtens

Power to the people: local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2015; 43: 666–675.

17.

Seongbuk gu Office. Jeoljeonso Movement, http://www.seongbuk.go.kr/newtown/environment/foundation/foundation01 (accessed 13 May 2017).

18.

Yang

Reimbursing to residents through public electricity bills… An apartment gained its fame through energy saving activities. Dongailbo, 21 September 2012, http://news.donga.com/View?gid=49566501&date=20120921 (accessed 4 May 2017).

19.

Shim

Raising wages of guard workers and securing their jobs through saving electricity bills. Kyeonghyang Newspaper, 28 November 2014, http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201411280600045 (accessed 10 May 2017).