Basic Report

In 2020 study, it was industrial complexes and road sectors, selected as projects with contribution to balanced development, that indicator was made from. This year, the subject was urban development projects. Unlike roads and industrial complexes, urban development projects required lots of effort to clearly set the subject, purpose, and scope of analysis. And it was balance within region was more important than balance between regions.
   In particular, this study is meaningful in that it analyzes how pre-selected evaluation indicator changes due to the project implementation, suggesting a new balanced development analysis method to quantitatively help determine whether sprawl and housing level improves.
   In addition, the problem will be improved that the more infrastructure is supplied, the lower the economic and financial results as infrastructure sites are excluded from the analysis process of LIMAC's urban development project feasibility study.
   Specifically, in this study, the operational definition of sprawl development is given as "increasing urban area(number of households) without sufficiently supplying infrastructure", and the subject of analysis is "residential urban development projects". Therefore, the necessity of urban development projects is judged as excessive and insufficient infrastructure, and it is selected for the sprawl indicators discussed in previous studies. Also, housing level-related indicators were selected for housing supply and dilapidated dwelling.
   As for the sprawl index, ①(HSOC)infrastructure area/number of households and ②(USOC)infrastructure area/urban area were selected, and ③(HUA)urban area /number of households was selected as auxiliary indicators. As for the housing level index, ①housing supply rate and ②number of houses per 1,000 people were selected as quantitative indicators, ③old-age housing ratio and ④housing area per person were selected as qualitative indicators. In addition, the frequency of designation of unsold management areas by HUG was selected in order to take into account the risk of sale-in-lots of residential urban development projects.
   Next, through analysis by indicator, the ranking was analyzed through categorization of regional sprawl and housing level, including the comprehensive index. Since there are two indicators, the types of sprawl are divided into four types, and at this time, the types that need improvement in sprawl through infrastructure expansion become B, C, and D type. Since there are four indicators for the type of housing level, it is divided into 16 types in total. The 16 types are again divided into good, normal, and defective grades, and the defective grades are the subjects that need to be improved in the housing level that this study is interested in.
   Overall, in the case of sprawl, the same weight was applied, and in the case of housing level, the difference in indicators was large for each si, gun, and gu, so the weights were differentiated by dividing urbanized 'si' and 'gu' with non-urbanized 'gun'. 'Si' and 'gu' place greater weights on quantitative indicators, and 'gun' place greater weights on qualitative indicators. Next, 'regions requiring for residential urban development projects' were selected through sprawl, categorization of housing levels, and review of rankings according to the comprehensive index, and at this time, the unique characteristics of each region were considered.
   This study reveals that under the comprehensive policy agenda of 'balanced development', it focuses on a limited area of local investment projects, especially 'how to reflect balanced development in a feasibility study'. This study is to quantitatively reflect social values in the policy analysis of feasibility studies, and so efforts to develop evaluation items and methods corresponding to the social values of local investment projects will be needed. In addition, it is necessary to expand to a more generalized methodology by synthesizing the previous year's research results.