A Study on Economic Evaluation of Beneficiary Pays Principle in Water Resource Management - The Case of Namyangju in Korea -

수자원관리 부문에서 수혜자부담원칙 경제적 평가에 관한 연구 - 남양주시 사례분석 -

  • Received : 2014.06.14
  • Accepted : 2014.08.18
  • Published : 2014.10.31


Using hedonic price method, this paper analyzes the impact of restriction for water quality protection on property value with the officially announced price of reference land in the city of Namyangju in 2012 to evaluate Water Use Fee, based on beneficiary pays principle, levied on the downstream area of the Han River in Korea. The results from the regression analyses of the models used show that the double-log model is the preferred model in the case of Namyangju. Using the double-log model, the total compensation for the city of Namyangju is estimated to be 8.6 trillion won with 95% confidence interval between 4.4 trillion and 12.4 trillion won. Under the perpetuity compensation scheme at the discount rate of 10%, the estimated annual compensation is 0.9 trillion won with 95% confidence interval between 0.4 trillion and 1.2 trillion won. This is more than Water Use Fee collected in 2012 for the Han River, which is approximately 0.5 trillion won. Considering the size of the restricted area of the Paldang area, which is more than 18 times of that of Namyangju, the rate of Water Use Fee, which is based on beneficiary pays principle and imposed on the residents of the downstream area, needs to be increased to sufficiently compensate the economic loss caused to the upstream areas of the Han River in Korea.


  1. 경기도. 2013. 2012년도 팔당백서.
  2. 국토교통부. 2013. 부동산공시가격 알리미, (2013년 12월 10일 접속).
  3. 기획재정부. 2013. 2012년도 부담금운용종합보고서.
  4. 한강수계관리위원회. 2013. 한강수계관리기금통계.
  5. 환경부. 2013. 2013 환경통계연감.
  6. Benson, E. D., Hansen, J. L., Schwartz, A. L. & Smersh, G. T. 1998. Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16(1): 55-73.
  7. Chattopadhyay, S. 1999. Estimating the Demand for Air Quality: New Evidence Based on the Chicago Housing Market, Land Economics, 75(1): 1-22.
  8. Kendree J. M, Rauch D. A. 1990. Toward a Theory on the Effects of View and Size on the Price of Real Estate, ARES annual meeting Lake Tahoe NV.
  9. Kim and Jung. 2012. An Analysis of the Impact of Locally Unwanted Land Uses on Land Price in Ulsan City, The Journal of the Korean Urban Administration Association, 25(3): 161-175.
  10. Lake, I. R., Lovett, A. A., Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H. 2000. Improving Land Compensation Procedures via GIS and Hedonic Pricing, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18(6): 681-696.
  11. Lancaster, K. J. 1966. A New Approach to Consumer Theory, Journal of Political Economy, 74: 132-157.
  12. Murdoch, J. and Thayer, M. 1988. Hedonic Price Estimation of Variable Urban Air Quality, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15: 143-146.
  13. Rodriguez, M. and Sirmans, C. F. 1994. Quantifying the Value of a View in Single-family Housing Markets, Appraisal Journal, 62: 600-603.
  14. Rosen, S. 1974. Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition, Journal of Political Economy, 82(1): 35-55.
  15. Sirpal, R. 1994. Empirical Modeling of the Relative Impacts of Various Sizes of Shopping Centres on the Value of Surrounding Residential Properties, Journal of Real Estate Research, 9(4): 487-505.
  16. Wolverton M. L. 1997. Empirical Study of the Relationship between Residential Lot Price, Size and View, Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 15(1): 48-57.
  17. Yoon, J. 2014. A Study on Economic Evaluation of Beneficiary Pays Principle in Water Resource Management: The Case of Namyangju in Korea, Master's Thesis, KDI School of Public Policy and Management.
  18. Zabel, J. and Kiel, K. 2000. Estimating the Demand for Air Quality in Four Cities in the United States, Land Economics, 78: 174-194.