Economic and Environmental Geology (자원환경지질)

The Korean Society of Economic and Environmental Geology (대한자원환경지질학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Economic Impact Analysis of Disaster Mitigation Projects in Hazardous Areas

자연재해위험지구 정비사업의 투자효과분석

  • Heo, Bo-Young (Social Disaster Research Division, National Disaster Management Institute) ;
  • Yu, Soonyoung (Division of Computational Sciences in Mathematics, National Institute for Mathematical Sciences) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Wook (Gi Co. Ltd., Geo-Information Institute)
  • 허보영 (국립재난안전연구원 복합재난연구실) ;
  • 유순영 (국가수리과학연구소 계산수학연구부) ;
  • 김성욱 (주식회사 지아이 부설 지반정보연구소)
  • Received : 2013.03.05
  • Accepted : 2013.06.15
  • Published : 2013.06.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In order to improve the quality assurance of the disaster mitigation projects, the economic effect of these projects in the hazardous areas was analysed. Eight project sites were selected for analyses based on the disaster data during the previous 10 years, and the investment effect was evaluated using a benefit cost ratio (B/C). The benefit was estimated using the historical disaster data and presumed to continue for 30 years, while the cost was assumed with the total project cost. Analysis results indicate the B/C ratio is larger than 1 in the difference range, depending on factors such as impact areas and discount rates. According to the analysis results, the average B/C of the eight projects is 4.1 with assuming the discount rate of 4% and the impact diameter of 5 km, which implies that a disaster management project in hazardous areas will give the positive investment effects.

재해위험지구 정비사업의 질적 수준제고를 위하여 재해위험지구 정비 사업을 대상으로 비용 대비 편익을 분석하였다. 최근의 재해이력을 고려하여 8개의 분석대상 지구를 선정하였고, 비용편익비(B/C)를 사용하여 투자효과를 분석하였다. 편익 산정은 해당지역의 과거재해이력을 활용하였으며, 비용은 총사업비로 평가하였다. 8개의 분석대상 지구에 대한 분석결과는 영향범위, 할인율 등의 인자에 따라 다른 범위에서 1보다 큰 B/C를 보여주고 있다. 분석결과에 따르면, 4% 할인율과 5 km 영향거리 조건에서 8개 대상 지구에 대한 평균 B/C는 4.1로 1이상을 나타내는 것으로 확인되었다. 이러한 결과로 볼 때 재해위험지구 정비 사업은 비용 대비 효율이 높을 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) (2005) Total Disaster Risk Management-Good Practices.
  2. Twigg, J. (1998) Development at Risk? Natural Disasters and the Third World. Oxford.
  3. Dedeurwaerdere, A. (1998) Cost-benefit Analysis for Natural Disaster Management-A Case-study in the Phillipines. Brussels, Belgium, CRED.
  4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2006) FY 2006 PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM-GUIDANCE.
  5. International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) (2002) World Disasters Report 2002. Geneva.
  6. Kopp, R. J., A. Krupnick, and M. Toman. (1997) Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Reform: An Assessment of the Science and the Art. Discussion Paper 97-19. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
  7. Korea Development Institute (KDI) (2008) Improvement Direction on Preliminary Feasibility Analysis and Feasibility Analysis of Water Resources Project.
  8. Lee, Sang-Won (2009) Economic Implications of 4 Great River Revitalization Project, Korea Water Resources Association.
  9. Mechler, R. (2004a) Piura case study. Interim report for GTZ.
  10. Mechler, R. (2004b) Semarang case study. Interim report for GTZ.
  11. Mechler, R (2005) Cost-benefit Analysis of Natural Disaster Risk Management in Developing and Emerging Countries. Long Study. Interim report for GTZ.
  12. Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM) (2001) A study on economic analyses of flood control projects.
  13. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLTT) (2004) Guideline for cost-benefit analysis of public projects.
  14. National Disaster Management Institute (NDMI) (2012) Effect analysis and project development to improve vulnerable areas to natural disasters.
  15. National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) (2006) A study on the research for the method to strengthen the disaster mitigation activities and to increase the investments.
  16. National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) (2010a) Annual disaster statistical review 2011.
  17. National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) (2010b) Guideline for Management of Vulnerable Areas to Natural Disaster.
  18. National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) (2012) Guideline for Management of Vulnerable Areas to Natural Disasters.
  19. US National Institute of Building Science(US NIBS) (2005) Natural hazard mitigation saves: An independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities, multihazard mitigation council, Washington D.C.
  20. Venton, C. and Venton, P. (2004) Disaster preparedness programmes in India. A cost benefit analysis. Humanitarian Practice Network, London.
  21. World Bank (1996) Staff Appraisal report: Argentina Flood Project. Washington DC, World Bank.