DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cost-Benefit Analysis of The National Land Census Project and Its Policy Implications

국토센서스 사업의 비용 및 편익분석과 시사점

  • Lee, Young-Sung (Department of Environmental Planning, Seoul National University Graduate School of Environmental Studies) ;
  • Kim, Kab-Sung (Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Choon-Won (College of Law, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Kwon, Dae-Jung (Department of Real Estate, Myongji University) ;
  • Yu, Hyeon-Ji (Department of Environmental Planning, Seoul National University Graduate School of Environmental Studies) ;
  • Yun, Hyung-Seok (College of Law, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Kim, Jin (Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute)
  • 이영성 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경계획학과) ;
  • 김갑성 (연세대학교 도시공학과) ;
  • 이춘원 (광운대학교 법과대학) ;
  • 권대중 (명지대학교 부동산학과) ;
  • 유현지 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경계획학과) ;
  • 윤형석 (광운대학교 법과대학) ;
  • 김진 (한국국토정보공사 공간정보연구원)
  • Received : 2019.10.02
  • Accepted : 2019.12.07
  • Published : 2019.12.10

Abstract

The National Land Census Project aims to survey the national land regularly to resolve the land category disagreement and reflect the actual land use. The objective of this study is to investigate whether not only the National Land Census Project but also related land and housing surveys bring about the improvement of social welfare in light of the invested budget, and to measure the project feasibility. The potential benefit after the National Land Census Project is not traded in the market. To determine the economic value of this potential benefit, the Contingent Valuation Method was used. This study utilized the single-bounded and double-bounded dichotomous choice models simultaneously to estimate the project feasibility of the cadastral system improvement. According to this study, cost-benefit ratio of the project was estimated larger than 1, which means that social benefits are larger than social costs.

국토센서스 사업은 지목불일치 문제를 해결하고 실제 토지이용을 반영할 수 있도록 전국의 토지를 정기적으로 직접 조사하는 작업이다. 그에 따라 본 연구는 국토센서스 사업뿐만 아니라 관련된 토지·주택조사가 투입된 예산 대비 실제로 사회적 후생의 증대를 가져오는지 검토하고, 사업의 타당성을 점검하고자 하였다. 국토센서스 사업의 경제적 가치는 조건부 가치 추정법의 단일경계모형과 이중양분선택법을 동시에 활용하여 지적체계 개선 사업의 타당성을 추정하고자 하였다. 단일경계모형과 이중양분선택법에 의한 편익 가운데, 보수적인 결과가 나온 단일경계모형으로도 본 사업의 비용편익비율은 1을 상회한다. 향후 이 사업의 추진 과정에서 예상보다 비용이 증가하거나, 지금 본 연구에서 상정한 것과 달리 현실에서는 편익이 적게 나올 수도 있다. 미래의 사업추진에는 현재 우리가 모두 알기 힘든 불확실성이 있기 때문이다. 그러한 불확실성에 대해서는 앞으로 현명하게 대처하고, 비효율성을 통제하기 위한 진지한 노력이 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. 2016. Practice Guidelines for the Basic Research of Architectural Assets.
  2. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. 2016. Cost Calculation Standards of Cadastral Survey Fees.
  3. Kim YS, Ji JD. 2013. A Study on the Improvement of the Current Land Category System in Korea for Introducing 3D Cadastre. Proceeding of Annual Conference of the Korean Cadastre Information Association.
  4. Kim YK, Lee SB. 2005. A Study on the Improvement of the Cadastral Land Classification System for Introducing 3D Cadastre. Journal of the Korean Society of Cadastre. 21(2):77-93.
  5. Kim J, Lee GJ, Yoo SJ, Shin SW, Lee IS, Chung TY, Lee CW. 2014. A Study on the Improvement of the Land Category Classification System to Improve Public Credibility of Cadastral Records. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute.
  6. Moon HA, Kim KS, Lee YS. 2015. A Study on the Feasibility of Setup of Territorial Information on North Korean Areas. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute.
  7. Park JP, Bae WJ, Hong SE. 2014. A Study on the Survey Method of the Real Land Categories for Resolving the Land Category Non-Coincidence. Journal of the Korean Society of Cadastre. 30(3):59-69.
  8. Seoul Development Institute. 2001. Effect of far Control on Housing Reconstruction.
  9. Seoul Development Institute Cheonggyecheon Restoration Research Center. 2003. The Feasibility Study and Basic Plan of Cheonggyecheon Restoration, Social Cost and Benefit Sector.
  10. Seo CS, Ji JD. 2002. Cadastral History of Korea. Kimoondang. p.221.
  11. Yoo SJ, Shin SW, Sung YM, Noh MJ, DO JE. 2013. Review of Land Category System in accordance with Land-use Diversification. Journal of the Korean Cadastre Information Association. 15(1):255-272.
  12. Yoo SJ, Kim J, Noh MJ, DO JE. 2015. A Report on Official Land Value Rising Effects of Land Use Category System. Journal of the Korean Society of Cadastre. 8(2):87-104.
  13. Yu CH, Hong SW. 2013. A Study on the Improved Utilization through the Improvement of the Current Type of Land-Use Information Systems Research. Journal of the Korean Cadastre Information Association. 15(1):19-34.
  14. Lee YS, Kim KS, Jung HY, Kim J. 2017. Indirect benefits of the introduction of Korean Spatial Information System. Journal of the Korean Regional Science Association. 33(2):39-46. https://doi.org/10.22669/KRSA.2017.33.2.039
  15. Lee CK. 2003. Applied Economics of Tourism. Ilsinsa.
  16. Jeong DH, Park JH, Lee SG. 2015. A study on the Unified Survey of the National Land Information. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute.
  17. Korea Development Institute. 2010. Cadastral Resurvey Project.: 2010 Preliminary Feasibility Study Report.
  18. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute. 2015. A Study on Specification of UAV Operation for Creation of Spatial Information Infrastructure.
  19. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute. 2017. A Study on the Improvement of the Current Land Category System.
  20. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute. 2017. A Study on the Project Validity of a Land Category System Improvement.
  21. Korea Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation Spatial Information Research Institute. 2018. A study on CVM for a New Land Category System and Survey Project.
  22. Kanninen BJ. 1993. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics. 69(2): 138-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146514