홍수피해 저감사업의 예비타당성조사 평가체계 개선 : -지역균형발전 분석을 대상으로- = A Study on Enhancing the Preliminary Feasibility Study Framework for Flood Damage Mitigation Projects-Focusing on Regional Balanced Development Assessment-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study begins with the recognition that the current Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) evaluation framework does not adequately incorporate the unique characteristics of water resource projects—particularly flood damage mitigation projects—and their fundamental purpose of disaster response.
Currently, the regional balanced development assessment in Korea’s Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) primarily relies on the Underdevelopment Index (UDI), which is derived from indicators related to basic public services such as education, transportation, housing, and welfare. As a result, disaster-related factors—such as flood vulnerability and overall disaster response capacity—are not adequately considered in the evaluation framework.
In particular, the regional balanced development criterion in the current PFS system provides preferential scoring exclusively to non-capital areas. As a result, certain regions within the capital—despite being highly vulnerable to disasters—may be disadvantaged in the evaluation simply because they are located in the capital region. This indicates a need to improve the consistency and fairness of the current system.
To address this issue, this study developed a new Flood Vulnerability Index that allows the unique characteristics of flood damage mitigation projects to be quantitatively incorporated into the evaluation framework. The index consists of three evaluation criteria—flood damage sensitivity and exposure, potential socio-environmental vulnerability, and flood response capacity—along with 11 individual indicators. Weights for each indicator were determined through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), based on expert surveys.
Indicators such as flood casualties per capita, per capita economic loss, the proportion of socially vulnerable populations, and infrastructure for disaster risk reduction (e.g., river improvement ratio and stormwater drainage coverage) were rated as relatively more important. This suggests that historical disaster records and the availability of direct response measures should be more strongly considered in preliminary feasibility evaluations.
The study also conducted a comparative analysis between the existing regional underdevelopment index and the newly developed Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI). The coefficient of determination (R²) between the two indices was 0.396, indicating that the underdevelopment index alone has limited explanatory power for flood vulnerability. Cross-tabulation and boxplot analyses showed that municipalities with the same underdevelopment grade often exhibited markedly different levels of flood vulnerability, suggesting that socio-economic underdevelopment may not adequately explain disaster risk. Notably, approximately 28% of municipalities were found to have high flood vulnerability despite not being classified as underdeveloped. These findings highlight the need for a more multi-dimensional evaluation framework, rather than relying solely on the underdevelopment index in assessing disaster-related vulnerability.
Based on these findings, this study proposes to integrate the Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI) as a sub-criterion under the regional balanced development category within the Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) framework. Furthermore, to address the limitations of municipality-based evaluations, it recommends adopting a watershed-based spatial assessment approach. This direction is particularly relevant for large-scale infrastructure projects—such as dams and detention basins—that provide benefits across broader hydrological regions.
The methodology developed in this study is not limited to flood damage mitigation projects but is extensible to other areas of the water resources sector, including domestic, agricultural, industrial, and environmental water supply projects. By constructing sector-specific vulnerability indices and systematically incorporating them into the Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) framework, the evaluation system can more accurately reflect the equity and effectiveness of water resource projects.
Finally, the proposed Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI) can serve as a quantitative decision-making tool not only within the national Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) system, but also in local government-level investment assessments. As many of these processes still rely heavily on expert judgment rather than objective data, the FVI provides a reliable and standardized basis for policy evaluation. This study provides a practical framework for enhancing public investment appraisal specifically in the context of flood damage mitigation, where disaster prevention and regional equity are essential considerations.

Keywords: Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI), Underdevelopment Index (UDI), Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS), Regional Balanced Development, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 1.1 연구 배경 및 필요성 1
• 1.2 연구 목적 7
• 1.3 연구 대상 및 범위 8
• 1.4 연구의 방법 및 내용 12
• 제2장 관련 문헌 검토 15
• 2.1 예타 제도의 지역균형발전 가치 반영 15
• 2.1.1 예비타당성조사 제도와 의사결정 구조 16
• 2.1.2 현행 지역균형발전 분석 방법 24
• 2.2 홍수 취약성 지수 관련 선행 연구 35
• 2.3 재해 관련 통계 46
• 2.3.1 피해 현황 46
• 2.3.2 복구 현황 49
• 2.3.3 시사점 52
• 제3장 이론적 배경 54
• 3.1 다기준의사결정 모형 54
• 3.1.1 다기준의사결정 일반론 54
• 3.1.2 공공투자사업과 다기준의사결정 55
• 3.2 다기준의사결정(MCDM)을 활용한 사업 평가 절차 60
• 3.3 연구 방향과의 연계 68
• 제4장 홍수취약성 지수를 통한 지역균형발전 분석 개선 방향 69
• 4.1 홍수피해 저감사업의 지역균형발전 평가체계 개선 요구사항 69
• 4.2 전문가 의견을 반영한 홍수취약성 지수 개발 방향 72
• 제5장 홍수피해 저감사업의 취약성 지수 개발 84
• 5.1 취약성 지수의 세부지표 분석 84
• 5.1.1 취약성 판단 기준 설정 84
• 5.1.2 세부지표 후보(안) 분석 86
• 5.1.3 홍수 취약성 지수의 세부지표 설정 115
• 5.2 세부지표별 표준점수 개발 120
• 5.2.1 세부지표 표준화 120
• 5.2.2 세부지표별 표준화 결과 123
• 5.3 평가기준별 가중치(상대적 중요도) 산정 138
• 5.4 홍수 취약성 지수 개발 145
• 제6장 홍수 취약성 지수를 고려한 예타 평가체계 개선 149
• 6.1 예타 평가체계 내 홍수 취약성 지수의 적용 방안 149
• 6.2 홍수 취약성 지수 반영에 따른 영향 분석 157
• 제7장 결론 172
• 7.1 연구 요약 172
• 7.2 정책 제언 176
• 참고문헌 178
• 초록(Abstract) 182
• 부 록 185
• 부록-1. 세부지표별 229개 시군구 표준점수 및 순위 185
• 부록-2. 229개 시군구 홍수취약성지수 및 1계층 평가지표 점수 230
• 부록-3. 160개 시군구 기준 지역낙후도 표준점수 및 순위 234
• 부록-4. 160개 시군구 기준 홍수취약성 표준점수 및 순위 237
• 부록-5. 160개 시군구 기준 합성분석 표준점수 및 순위 240
• 부록-6. 1차 전문가 설문 243
• 부록-7. 2차 전문가 설문 248