본문 바로가기
HOME> 논문 > 논문 검색상세

학위논문 상세정보

飮用水의 水質改善에 대한 便益 원문보기
(A) Study on the Benefit & Cost Analysis of Drinking Water Quality Improvement

  • 저자


  • 학위수여기관

    高麗大學校 大學院

  • 학위구분


  • 학과


  • 지도교수

  • 발행년도


  • 총페이지


  • 키워드

    임의가치평가법 수질오염 할인율;

  • 언어


  • 원문 URL


  • 초록

    본 연구는 임의가치측정법(CVM)을 통해 비시장재화의 가치를 측정하고 이를 토대로 음용수의 수질개선에 대한 편익-비용분석을 시도한 것이다. 먼저 음용수의 수질개선정책 시스템에 대한 문제점을 살펴본 후 현행 제도로 추진하였을 경우 1급수의 상태에 도달할 수 있는 것인지에 대해 중간 평가적 성과의 측정에 의미를 두었다. 팔당호 수질개선을 위한 5개년 사업계획에 대해 편익-비용분석을 위한 편익 추정에 있어서는 서울, 인천, 경기지역 주민들을 대상으로 총380가구의 설문조사를 근거로 지불의사금액에 대해 회귀모형을 설정하였다. 비용의 분석방법은 첫째 물 이용부담금을 기준으로 했으며, 두 번째는 물 이용부담금 및 환경기초시설비 집행예산을 감안하였고 세 번째로 물 이용부담금과 환경기초시설비 및 추가적으로 유지보수비(3%)가 물 가상승율(평균 4.34%)에 따라 변화하는 경우를 가정하였다. 이러한 세가지 유형의 시나리오를 설정하고 분석하였다. 물 이용부담금을 기준으로 한 비용에서는 수질개선편익을 10년, 20년, 30년 등 세가지 기간으로 지속된다고 가정하였다. 수질개선 사업의 순수익은 국공채이자율 4.2%를 기준으로 2010년도까지 추정해 볼 때는 비경제적인 사업으로 평가된다. 20년 사업으로 가정할 경우 B/C ratio가 2.05가 산출된다. 한편, 30년 사업을 상정할 경우에는 B/C ratio가 2.85로 산출된다. 따라서 수질개선 사업은 경제성에 있어 장기적으로 효율성을 갖고 있는 사업이라고 볼 수 있다. 사업기간별 할인율 변화(3, 5, 6, 7, 8%)에 의한 감응도 분석을 추정한 결과 10년의 사업은 비용이 편익을 초과하지 못하는 비경제적인 사업으로 나타났다. 20년 이상 30년 사업으로 지속 가능한 사업이 된다면 편익이 비용을 초과하는 안정적인 수질개선사업이 될 전망이다. 편익-비용분석의 한계라고 할 수 있는 할인율 결정 및 불확실성과 위험을 제거하기 위해서는 다양한 경로에서 발생 가능한 변수를 감안하여 분석해야 한다. 결론적으로, 가구당 지불의사금액은 Tobit모형의 경우는 2,827원 이었으며 OLS모형의 경우에는 3,299원으로 산출되었다. 물 이용부담금을 통한 재원조달에 있어서 정부는 신중하고도 지속 가능한 정책의 수립이 음용수에 대한 수질개선 목표달성의 선결조건이라는 점이 입증되었다. 앞으로는 수질개선가치에 상응하는 보상을 지불해야 하는 과제에 직면하고 있다고 할 수 있다.

    This study is aimed at estimating the benefits of a non-market goods, namely, improving drinking water quality by a means of contingent valuation method(CVM). Further, it focuses on evaluating water quality improvement program by utilizing a benefit-cost method. The emphasis is placed on measuring the mid-term results to assess whether it will be possible to achieve Grade 1 water quality with the current program. A benefit-cost analysis is adapted to evaluate several alternatives to improve economically the current water quality improvement program. Since 1990, the proponents for development gained strength over proponents for conservation with regard to the Paldang reservoir area. Restrictions started to ease in 1993 when the area was approved as a semi-agricultural area. In 1999, the Green Belt restrictions over this area was eased resulting in an increase of non-point source pollution. Another factor that contributed to the degradation of the Paldang water supply source was the fact that local governments other than Yong-in, such as Ichon City, Gapyung-gun, Yeoju City and Namyangju City were still fiscally dependant on the central government. They did not have enough financial resources to upgrade basic environmental facilities and were passive in their policies in managing the existing facilities. As a result, the urgency of the problem was recognized and drinking water charge were introduced in 1999 with the aim of upgrading the quality of water supplied to residents of Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi region to Grade 1. The charge was 80Won/ton at the initial stage and is now 120won/ton. The revenue is being used to subsidize residents in the upstream area, purchase adjacent land, prevent methods of algal blooms, plant and care for trees in the buffer zone, install and manage basic facilities for water quality improvement and provide environmental education. Nevertheless, it does not seem likely that the water quality will reach Grade 1 by 2005. The reasons in terms of technology and environment are: an increase of population in the controlled area, the lack of local community involvement and cooperation, and failure to technologically addressed the non-point source pollution. In order to evaluate the benefits of improving water quality in the Paldang lake for a benefit-cost analysis of the 5-year plan, a survey was conducted on 380 households in the Seoul, Incheon and GyeongGi region. The survey based on contingent valuation method was to ask households their willingness to pay as drinking water charge. A regression model was used based on the survey outcome to measure economic value. The results show that households were willing to pay somewhere between 2,827Won and 3,299Won per month depending upon Tobit model and OLS model. Since the total number of household living in this region amounts to 6,785,770, the aggregate amount comes to an average of about 19.2 to 22.4 billion Won per month. This is the incremental increase of utility that comes from attaining Grade 1. When this is extrapolated for 5 years, the duration of the program, the value of the benefit is expected to be between 1.151 and 1.343 trillion Won. In terms of cost based on the drinking water charge, a 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of project life were assumed to reflect water quality improvement benefit periods. In the B/C analysis and assumed that government bond yields were 4.2%. The benefit-cost ratio indicates that the program is uneconomical if the period runs up to 2010. The calculated B/C Ratio is 2.05 when the project life is 20 years and 2.85 when the period is 30 years. The sensitivity analysis based on discount rate variation(3, 5, 6, 7, 8%) shows that a 10 year program is uneconomical since cost does exceed benefit. The program is projected to be economically sustainable when it is continued for 20 to 30 years when benefit exceeds cost. The benefit of drinking water quality improvement was estimated by using a contingent valuation method(CVM). This study has reaffirmed that the government must establish sustainable policy for securing the financial resources by a means of water charge. Managing public goods should not be the sole responsibility of the central government, and local governments must play a larger role. There will also be certain rights, responsibility and accountability that follow this larger role. It is time to recognize that any initiative to improve water quality must deliver value and provide compensation.

 활용도 분석

  • 상세보기

    amChart 영역
  • 원문보기

    amChart 영역