This study aims at improving policy effectiveness of ‘Impact Fee Area for Infrastructure Provision’(hereafter the IFAIP). The policy, installed in March, had been devised to control distordered individual develop without adequate infrastructure in urban fringe, but has been properly functioned due to the unclear policy guidelines. Thus, the study tried to improve policy effectiveness by detecting the current study tried to improve policy effectiveness by detecting the current problems of the IFAIP at implementation stage and providing clear and relevant policy guidelines.
Chapter 2. The problems of development in non build-up area
This chapter deals with the principle of cost-sharing among related actors in infrastructures provision in non built-up area. It has to be executed through collaboration with the government and private developer to install infrastructures just in case the development on a large scale in non urbanized area. Private developers should provide infrastructure when they develop in non urbanized area on small scale. Problems of small scale development in non urbanized area are fragmentation of development, dualisation of management system in combined development rules, lack of public infrastructure, failure in securing integrated guidline, etc.
Chapter3. Key features and problems of the IFAIP
In this chapter, the key features and criteria of the IFAIP are analyzed. And then problems of this policy has be drawn from the above-mentioned contents. In spite of need for integrated and systematic management, current policy just focuses on individual unit developments. Moreover, this policy will be useless unless it could restrict individual unit developments in non impact fee area. Until now legal criteria on installing infrastructures are obscure and confusing.
Chapter 4. Improving policy relevance of the IFAIP
In terms of urban growth management to consider the conditions in each region of the system to operate autonomously, this study proposes to improvement methods of the impact fee area. First, kinds of facilities that could be excluded in the imposition of mandatory infrastructure installation were offered under the six principles. Next, four alternatives for criteria of impact fee area are proposed.
Chapter 5. Conclusion and suggestions
This study suggested the several alternatives to improve the IFAIP, but which can not be concluded that the most reasonable. Therefore, every local governments should be chosen the alternative according to the characteristics of the region. It will be needed more detailed study on regulation mechanism and association with the other institutions.
- 도시성장관리를 고려한 기반시설부담구역제도 개선방안 연구(An approach on policy improvement for impact fee area condidering the smart growth)
- 김상조; 박세훈; 이진희
도시성장관리를 고려한 기반시설부담구역제도 개선방안 연구(An approach on policy improvement for impact fee area condidering the smart growth)
|Series Title; No||국토연 / 2010-14|
|Subject Country||South Korea(Asia and Pacific)|
|Subject||Territorial Development < National Land Development|