KR20230147389A - Method and system for analyzing the effect of disaster prevention projects - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method and system for analyzing the effects of disaster prevention projects. More specifically, in analyzing the ripple effects of disaster prevention projects, direct effect analysis using cost-benefit analysis (CBA), resident safety perception, and local government A method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects that can determine whether disaster prevention projects are effectively promoted by performing mattress analysis based on indirect effect analysis using efforts to determine whether the direct effect analysis and indirect effect analysis results are above average. It's about.
According to one aspect of the present invention, the direct effect analysis unit performs a cost benefit analysis (CBA) for each region based on disaster prevention project information set by the user to derive direct effect analysis result information and indirect effect analysis. Based on the disaster prevention project information set by the additional user, the safety perception information of residents by region and the disaster budget information by region are analyzed to derive indirect effect analysis result information, and the matrix analysis unit provides direct effect analysis result and indirect effect analysis result information. Based on this, an evaluation matrix is created, and the average value of the direct effect analysis result and the indirect effect analysis result is calculated, and the effect judgment department selects regions where both the direct effect analysis result and the indirect effect analysis result are above the average value on the evaluation matrix as the high effect group. It is possible to provide a method for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, which is characterized by determining that the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects for the relevant region is high.
According to another aspect of the present invention, a direct effect analysis unit that derives direct effect analysis result information by performing regional cost benefit analysis (CBA) based on disaster prevention project information set by the user, Indirect effect analysis department, which derives indirect effect analysis result information by analyzing regional residents' safety perception information and regional disaster budget information based on disaster prevention project information, based on direct effect analysis result and indirect effect analysis result information A matrix analysis unit that generates an evaluation matrix and calculates the average value of the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results. In the evaluation matrix, regions where both the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results are above the average are classified into groups with high effectiveness. The effect judgment unit, which determines that the disaster prevention project effect for the area is high, stores user input information, and the information processed in the direct effect analysis unit, indirect effect analysis unit, matrix analysis unit, and effectiveness judgment unit is stored in memory. A disaster prevention project effect analysis system comprising an information storage unit and a control unit that controls signal processing of the direct effect analysis unit, indirect effect analysis unit, matrix analysis unit, effect determination unit, and information storage unit. can be provided.

Description

Method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects {METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ANALYZING THE EFFECT OF DISASTER PREVENTION PROJECTS}

The present invention relates to a method and system for analyzing the effects of disaster prevention projects. More specifically, in analyzing the ripple effects of disaster prevention projects, direct effect analysis using cost-benefit analysis (CBA), resident safety perception, and local government A method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects that can determine whether disaster prevention projects are effectively promoted by performing mattress analysis based on indirect effect analysis using efforts to determine whether the direct effect analysis and indirect effect analysis results are above average. It's about.

Disaster prevention projects can be said to be one of the national policies to protect people's lives and property by creating a disaster-safe land. The disaster risk district maintenance project refers to areas that are not safe from force majeure natural phenomena such as typhoons, floods, heavy rain, storms, tsunamis, and heavy snow, and may cause damage to people's lives and property, as well as surrounding areas including natural disaster reduction facilities. . Evaluation of this is a necessary task for efficient distribution of resources and achievement of national policy goals.

As interest in disaster prevention projects increases, investments in disaster prevention are also increasing. At the same time, evaluation to verify the effectiveness of investment in disaster prevention projects is also emerging as an important task. Therefore, when investing in disaster prevention projects, an evaluation system must be established to verify the ripple effects. In order to establish a good evaluation system for disaster prevention projects, it is necessary to critically review whether the policy projects being carried out by governments and organizations are good or bad.

When establishing and executing various policy projects to achieve desirable results, it is necessary to review the policy projects in various directions and obtain answers to problems that arise during the review process. In order for these disaster prevention project evaluations to be operated efficiently, the evaluation system must be well established.

Most disaster prevention projects verify their effectiveness through direct effect analysis. Most studies on direct effect analysis of public projects have been conducted using cost-benefit analysis methods. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a method to comprehensively evaluate all expected costs and benefits from a long-term perspective by identifying costs and benefits from a social interest or national economic perspective. Despite the difficulty in calculating cost-benefit, it is widely used in the evaluation of public projects such as disaster prevention projects.

Research related to the effect analysis of disaster prevention projects verifies the effect through direct effect analysis, so there are limitations in reflecting various benefits. In addition, although objective measurement is possible to some extent through direct effect analysis, the scope of the effect may vary depending on the safety perception of the project target group and the efforts of the local government, so it is difficult to say that direct effect analysis alone presents the overall effect. In particular, public projects such as disaster prevention projects must take into account the diverse needs of the people who benefit. Because indirect effect analysis of public projects is difficult to measure accurately, limited studies are limited to suggesting methods.

Meanwhile, the River Facilities Standards (1993) suggests a method of calculating damage using regional indirect damage coefficients. This method is a relatively simple method that uses regional indirect damage coefficients and crop damage amounts calculated based on flood damage. In a study on the calculation of the appropriate investment scale for flood prevention projects and the establishment and operation of an evaluation system (2003), it was mentioned that the current damage calculation method is underestimated compared to the actual damage, so a reasonable plan that takes indirect damage into consideration is needed. In this method, business losses at factories and business sites, costs used for cleaning, damage due to breach of contract, etc. are presented as items to be reflected when calculating the scale of indirect damage.

Research on direct effect analysis or indirect effect analysis to evaluate national public projects such as disaster prevention projects is continuously conducted. In order to derive comprehensive and reasonable results, it is ideal to analyze in two ways. However, no analysis method that can consider the two methods together has been studied. Therefore, this study seeks to present a ripple effect analysis system that can consider both direct and indirect effect analysis.

Korean Patent Publication No. 2010-0132289

The present invention was created to solve the above-mentioned problems, and analyzes the direct effects using cost-benefit analysis and analyzes the indirect effects using safety awareness and disaster safety budget, and provides direct and indirect effect analysis results. By performing a matrix analysis based on this, we aim to present an analysis system that reflects both the direct and indirect effects of the disaster prevention project so that the ripple effects of the disaster prevention project can be efficiently identified.

According to one aspect of the present invention, the direct effect analysis unit performs a cost benefit analysis (CBA) for each region based on disaster prevention project information set by the user to derive direct effect analysis result information and indirect effect analysis. Based on the disaster prevention project information set by the additional user, the safety perception information of residents by region and the disaster budget information by region are analyzed to derive indirect effect analysis result information, and the matrix analysis unit provides direct effect analysis result and indirect effect analysis result information. Based on this, an evaluation matrix is created, and the average value of the direct effect analysis result and the indirect effect analysis result is calculated, and the effect judgment department selects regions where both the direct effect analysis result and the indirect effect analysis result are above the average value on the evaluation matrix as the high effect group. It is possible to provide a method for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, which is characterized by determining that the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects for the relevant region is high.

According to another aspect of the present invention, a direct effect analysis unit that derives direct effect analysis result information by performing regional cost benefit analysis (CBA) based on disaster prevention project information set by the user, Indirect effect analysis department, which derives indirect effect analysis result information by analyzing regional residents' safety perception information and regional disaster budget information based on disaster prevention project information, based on direct effect analysis result and indirect effect analysis result information A matrix analysis unit that generates an evaluation matrix and calculates the average value of the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results. In the evaluation matrix, regions where both the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results are above the average are classified into groups with high effectiveness. The effect judgment unit, which determines that the disaster prevention project effect for the area is high, stores user input information, and the information processed in the direct effect analysis unit, indirect effect analysis unit, matrix analysis unit, and effectiveness judgment unit is stored in memory. An effect analysis system for disaster prevention projects characterized by comprising an information storage unit and a control unit that controls signal processing of the direct effect analysis unit, indirect effect analysis unit, matrix analysis unit, effect determination unit, and information storage unit. can be provided.

The method and system for analyzing the effects of disaster prevention projects according to the present invention perform direct effect analysis and indirect effect analysis on disaster prevention projects and perform matrix analysis using both direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results, resulting in matrix analysis results. From the above, it is possible to easily and easily identify groups (regions) with high effectiveness and groups (regions) with low effectiveness, so it is possible to determine whether the disaster prevention project is effectively implemented, and the ripple effect can be comprehensively analyzed through the proposed analysis system.

Furthermore, by using the matrix analysis results, it is possible to set complementary policies to move low-effectiveness groups to high-effectiveness groups.

1 is a flowchart illustrating a method for analyzing the effectiveness of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 2 is a system diagram showing the configuration of a system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 3 is a diagram showing the results of analysis of safety perception by region using a method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 4 is a diagram showing the proportion of disaster budget by region using the method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 5 is a diagram showing the results of regional disaster budget analysis using a method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 6 is a diagram illustrating a method for determining the effect using a first evaluation matrix in a method and system for analyzing the effect of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 7 is a diagram illustrating a method for determining the effect using a second evaluation matrix in a method and system for analyzing the effect of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Since the present invention can be modified in various ways and can have various embodiments, specific embodiments will be illustrated in the drawings and described in detail in the detailed description. However, this is not intended to limit the present invention to specific embodiments, and should be understood to include all transformations, equivalents, and substitutes included in the spirit and technical scope of the present invention. In describing the present invention, if it is determined that a detailed description of related known technologies may obscure the gist of the present invention, the detailed description will be omitted.

Terms such as first, second, etc. may be used to describe various components, but the components should not be limited by the terms. The above terms are used only for the purpose of distinguishing one component from another.

The terms used in this application are only used to describe specific embodiments and are not intended to limit the invention. Singular expressions include plural expressions unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. In this application, terms such as “comprise” or “have” are intended to designate the presence of features, numbers, steps, operations, components, parts, or combinations thereof described in the specification, but are not intended to indicate the presence of one or more other features. It should be understood that this does not exclude in advance the possibility of the existence or addition of elements, numbers, steps, operations, components, parts, or combinations thereof. Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

Figure 1 is a flowchart for explaining a method for analyzing the effect of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention, and Figure 2 shows the configuration of a system 100 for analyzing the effect of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention. It is a system diagram for providing information, and Figure 3 is a diagram showing the results of analysis of safety perception by region using the method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects according to an embodiment of the present invention, and Figure 4 is a diagram showing the results of analysis of safety perception by region according to an embodiment of the present invention. It is a diagram showing the proportion of disaster budget by region using a method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, and Figure 5 is a diagram showing the results of disaster budget analysis by region using a method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects according to an embodiment of the present invention. , and FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a method for determining the effect using the first evaluation matrix in the method and system for analyzing the effect of a disaster prevention project according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. This is a diagram to explain the effect analysis method of a disaster prevention project and the effect judgment method using the second evaluation matrix in the system.

Referring to Figures 1 and 2, the disaster prevention project effect analysis method and disaster prevention project effect analysis system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a direct effect analysis unit 110 and an indirect effect analysis unit 120. ), a matrix analysis unit 130, an effectiveness determination unit 140, an effectiveness security unit 150, an information storage unit 160, and a control unit 170. Direct effect analysis (S110) and indirect effect analysis (S120) are performed, and matrix analysis (S130) is performed based on these analysis results. If the result is higher than the average value (S140), it is judged that the ripple effect of the disaster prevention project is high. (S150), and if the result is lower than the average value, it is configured to present supplementary information to supplement the business effect (S160).

Hereinafter, the method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of the disaster prevention project of the present invention will be described together with methodological and systematic explanations using one embodiment.

In this example, target areas were selected among completed disaster prevention projects across the country for integrated effect analysis, and the conditions considered were as follows.

Based on disaster occurrence statistics from the Disaster Annual Report, 33 areas where large-scale damage occurred were selected as the analysis target areas. In addition, since most of the damage in Korea's disaster damage is related to floods, disasters caused by floods were targeted in this example.

The direct effect analysis unit 110 performs a cost benefit analysis (CBA) for each region based on the disaster prevention project information set by the user and derives direct effect analysis result information (S110).

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) can be expressed as equation (1) below.

(One)

Here, Bi: benefit (present value of damage amount), Cj: cost (present value of investment costs such as construction cost), r: discount rate (5.5% applied), t: time (50 years applied).

In this example, the benefit (Bi) in equation (1) is the amount of damage to people, victims, crops, and other (buildings, farmland, public facilities, etc.). The calculation of each damage amount is based on the method presented in the ‘Disaster Risk Zone Management Guidelines, 2017’, which analyzes past damage data and applies it to the regression equation presented by city type.

The correlation between them varies greatly depending on size and regional characteristics. Cities across the country were classified into five types - large cities, small and medium-sized cities, rural cities, rural areas, and mountainous areas - based on standards, and the flooded area-damage amount relationship equation for each type of city was presented.

The amount of damage to human lives, victims, and crops is calculated by considering the loss per flooded area, and the respective calculation formulas are as shown in equations (2) to (5) below.

(2) Human casualties = Number of lives lost per flooded area (people/ha) × loss unit (input unit) × flooded area (ha)

(3) Damage amount to victims = victims per flooded area (persons/ha) × number of evacuation days (days) × average daily income (KRW/person, day) × flooded area (ha)

(4) Crop damage = Flooded area (ha) × Yield (volume/ha) × Crop damage rate (%) × Crop unit price (KRW/volume)

Meanwhile, the amount of damage to public facilities, buildings, agricultural land, and other areas is calculated using the equation (5) below.

(5) Other damage amount = Constant port (A) + Flooded area port (B) × Base price ] and the flood frequency rate.

[Table 1] Variables for calculating damage by city type (ha, million won)

※ s = Flooded area (ha)/Average flooded area (ha)

At this time, the method presented in the ‘Disaster Risk Zone Management Guidelines, 2017’ was applied to calculate the cost (Cj) and maintenance costs. To calculate the cost (Cj), the total project cost calculated during the business plan was used. The total project cost was divided by the project period and assumed to be incurred equally every year. In addition, 0.5% of the total project cost was applied to calculate maintenance costs, which were assumed to continue to occur for 50 years from the year following project completion.

To convert the benefits generated over 50 years into present value, the discount rate (r) is applied as in equation (1) above. The discount rate is a concept that discounts all future benefits and costs to present value, so it is very important to consider the appropriate discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Accordingly, in the present invention, the analysis was conducted by applying the discount rate of 5.5% in the disaster risk district management guidelines.

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) results for disaster prevention projects in 33 regions subject to analysis of the present invention are shown in [Table 2] below.

[Table 2] Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) results by region

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is interpreted as a significant result when the calculated value is 1 or more, and the results for 33 regions showed a value of 1 or more on average. Among the 33 regions analyzed, 91% were small and medium-sized cities, and 9% were rural areas.

The cost-benefit analysis results for 33 regions ranged from 1.730 to 4.09, with an average of 2.83. Most of the projects related to flooding included the construction of drainage pumping stations, river maintenance, and pipeline maintenance. Projects to repair vulnerable facilities or reduce tsunami risk mainly involved repairing or reinforcing existing facilities.

A cost-benefit analysis for each region is performed through the direct effect analysis unit 110 (S110), and then the safety perception of residents in each region is measured based on the disaster prevention project information set by the user through the indirect effect analysis unit 120. Analysis (S121) and regional disaster budget analysis (S122) are performed to derive indirect effect analysis (S120) result information.

Here, the indirect effect analysis unit 120 may be performed simultaneously with the direct effect analysis unit 110, but may be performed sequentially to reduce the load on system operation.

Indirect effects were analyzed based on residents' perceived safety and local efforts. To measure residents' perceived safety, data on social safety awareness were used, and for local efforts, data on regional disaster management budget ratios were analyzed.

Perception of social safety is official data on how safe our society is from natural disasters surveyed by Statistics Korea. This data was collected by province for five categories: very safe, safe, average, unsafe, and very unsafe regarding natural disasters in the area where one lives. This data has been collected by city and province since 2008, and is surveyed every two years.

In order to understand the residents' perception of safety in the analysis target area, data on residents' perception of safety by region from 2008 to 2020 were investigated. Data from the year of project completion were used, and in exceptional cases, the value from the year closest to project completion was used.

In order to calculate the perceived safety of the area subject to analysis according to the present invention, the percentage of people who consider it unsafe in each region was divided by the number of people in each region to calculate the number of people who thought it was unsafe. Then, the percentage of the population made safe was calculated by dividing this population by the number of people benefiting from the project area. The perceived safety of residents in each region can be calculated using equations (6) and (7) below.

(6) Perceived safety of residents by region (%) = (Number of people protected from projects/Number of people who think it is unsafe) × 100

(7) Number of people who think it is unsafe (people) = (number of local population × ratio of people who think it is unsafe)/100

As a result of analyzing the safety perception of residents by region, the percentage of people who became safe due to life protection, which is considered an effect of the project, was above average (average) in 14 out of 33 regions.

Referring to Figure 3, looking at each region, the average in Busan is 1.01%, the maximum is 2.00 (B3), and the minimum is 0.08 (b4). The population receiving benefits is 489 people in B3 and 21 in B4.

Incheon's average is 1.37, the maximum is 2.70 (I2), and the minimum is 0.04 (I1). The population receiving benefits is 6,630 people in I2 and 88 in I1.

The average of the game is 0.6, the maximum is 1.82 (G4), and the minimum is 0.02 (G6). The population receiving benefits is 2,590 in G4 and 60 in G6.

The average of North Chungcheong Province is 0.12, the maximum is 0.16 (CHB 1), and the minimum is 0.09 (CHB 2). The population receiving benefits is 547 in CHB 1 and 329 in CHB 2.

The average in Jeonbuk is 0.15, the maximum is 0.27 (JB 1), and the minimum is 0.09 (JB 3). The population receiving benefits is 128 in JB 1 and 40 in JB 3.

The average in Jeonnam is 0.4, the maximum is 1.01 (JN 2), and the minimum is 0.13 ((JN 3). The population receiving benefits is 1,248 in JN 2 and 52 in JN 3.

The average of Gyeongbuk is 1.3, the maximum is 2.46 (GB 1), and the minimum is 0.17 (GB 2). The population receiving benefits is 2,300 in GB 1 and 126 in GB 2.

The average in Gyeongnam is 1.67, the maximum is 2.6 (GN 2), and the minimum is 0.53 (GN 5). The population receiving benefits is 5,956 in GN 2 and 280 in GN 5.

These results show that the larger the scale of the project and the more people benefiting from it, the higher the percentage of people who become safe. The larger the scale of the project and the greater the number of people benefiting from it, the higher the proportion of people who became safe.

The status of disaster management budgets by region was determined using data from the Local Finance Integrated Disclosure System managed by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. The system provides comprehensive information on regional budgets.

To determine the current status of the disaster management budget by region, we first investigated the overall budget by region and year. The disaster and safety sector budget is classified into public order and safety field 020 code according to the government's budget classification code for each function.

The 020 fields include courts and constitutional court (021), judicial affairs and prosecution (022), police (023), and prevention of disaster and civil defense. (025) part is included.

In the financial management plan, what is considered investment in the disaster management field is the budget related to disaster prevention and civil defense (025).

In the present invention, the disaster prevention and civil defense budget for each region was extracted from the overall budget of the region for analysis of the damage status by region. Since the regional disaster budget is for the entire region, the ratio of the disaster budget to the number of people protected by the project was calculated, and the disaster budget analysis by region is as shown in equation (8) below.

(8) Disaster budget by region (%) = Disaster budget ratio of region × Number of protected population)/Number of regional population

Referring to Figure 4, as a result of analyzing the proportion of the disaster budget in the total budget of 16 local governments by region, the proportion of the disaster management budget in the total budget was found to be 2.1% on average. The Jeju region accounted for the largest proportion at 4.1%, while the Gwangju and Daejeon regions accounted for the lowest proportion.

Referring to Figure 5, the disaster budget analysis results by region, that is, the proportion of the disaster safety budget according to the number of people protected from disaster prevention projects, is as follows: the proportion of the total disaster safety budget of the local government is large, and the larger the number of people receiving benefits, the higher the disaster safety budget. It can be seen that the ratio is high.

Through this indirect effect analysis (S120), the safety perception of residents by region (S121) and the disaster budget by region (S122) are analyzed, and then the matrix analysis unit (130) is based on the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis result information. An evaluation matrix is created, and the average value of the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results is calculated.

A matrix means visualizing data by intersecting two lists consisting of rows and columns. Matrix analysis is a data analysis method that can confirm the interrelationship between data by using a matrix composed of the intersection of two or more major dimensions.

In this example, a matrix analysis (S130) was conducted using residents' perceived safety and disaster budget to present a ripple effect analysis system that considers both direct and indirect effects.

Referring to FIG. 6, the matrix analysis unit 130 can generate a first evaluation matrix using regional cost-benefit analysis information from the direct effect analysis and regional residents' safety perception information from the indirect effect analysis.

Additionally, referring to FIG. 7 , the matrix analysis unit 130 may generate a second evaluation matrix using regional cost-benefit analysis information from the direct effect analysis and regional disaster budget information from the indirect effect analysis.

Thereafter, the effectiveness determination unit 140 divides the groups into groups with high effectiveness and groups with low effectiveness according to the characteristics of direct effect analysis and indirect effect analysis based on the average values in the first and second evaluation matrices.

That is, after the matrix analysis (S130), the effectiveness determination unit 140 determines that the effect of the disaster prevention project is high (S150) if the result value is greater than the average value (S140), and if not, the effect of the disaster prevention project is low (S150). By judging it to be low, it is possible to distinguish groups by region.

The group with high effectiveness is a region where the direct effect analysis (cost-benefit analysis information by region) and indirect effect analysis results (safety perception of residents by region and disaster budget information by region) are above the average, and the group with low effectiveness is the region with direct effect analysis and indirect effect analysis. This is an area where at least one analysis result is below the average value.

In other words, the group with low effectiveness in the first evaluation matrix includes areas where both the cost-benefit analysis result and residents' perceived safety result are below the average value, or the cost-benefit analysis result is above the average value but residents' perceived safety result is low. do.

The group with low effectiveness in the second evaluation matrix includes regions where both the cost-benefit analysis result and disaster budget result are below the average value, or the cost-benefit analysis result is above the average value but the disaster budget result is low.

At this time, there is a need to suggest complementary policy methods to move regions included in the low-effectiveness group to the high-effectiveness group.

Accordingly, the effectiveness supplementation unit 150 can present information (S160) that can move regions classified into the low-effectiveness group to the high-effectiveness group using preset complementary information, and the supplementary information can be used to prevent disasters. Information on the project's plan to improve residents' sense of safety and information on adjusting the scale of the disaster and safety budget may be included.

Specifically, security information to improve residents' sense of safety in groups with low effectiveness includes increasing residents' understanding through a more detailed explanation of the project (policy) and providing education and training on how disasters occur and how to respond. Information that can be learned through learning may be included.

Additionally, security information to improve the disaster budget of a group with low effectiveness may include information that can expand the size of the disaster budget or check whether the disaster budget is being invested appropriately.

The information storage unit 160 stores the user's input information, and includes a direct effect analysis unit 110, an indirect effect analysis unit 120, a matrix analysis unit 130, an effect determination unit 140, and an effect supplement unit 150. ) stores the information processed in memory. Here, the user's input information may include damage-related information and disaster-related information for various disaster prevention projects.

The control unit 170 receives signals from the direct effect analysis unit 110, the indirect effect analysis unit 120, the matrix analysis unit 130, the effect determination unit 140, the effect control unit 150, and the information storage unit 160. By controlling the processing, direct effect analysis result information is derived (S110) through the direct effect analysis unit 110, and indirect effect result information is derived (S120) through the indirect effect analysis unit 120, and the matrix analysis unit An evaluation matrix is created through (130) (S130), ripple effect result information of the relevant disaster prevention project is derived (S140, S150) through the effect determination unit (140), and ripple effect is derived through the effect supplementation unit (150). It serves to present supplementary information according to the results (S160) and to store various information processed during execution in the information storage unit 160.

As described above, the method and system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects according to the present invention performs direct effect analysis and indirect effect analysis on disaster prevention projects and performs matrix analysis using both direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results. By doing so, it is possible to easily and easily identify groups (regions) with high effectiveness and groups (regions) with low effectiveness in the matrix analysis results, thereby determining whether the disaster prevention project is effectively implemented, and comprehensively assessing the ripple effect through the proposed analysis system. It can be analyzed.

Furthermore, by using the matrix analysis results, it is possible to set complementary policies to move low-effectiveness groups to high-effectiveness groups.

The preferred embodiments of the present invention described above have been disclosed for illustrative purposes, and those skilled in the art will be able to make various modifications, changes, and additions within the spirit and scope of the present invention, and such modifications, changes, and additions will be possible. The addition should be viewed as falling within the scope of the patent claims below.

100: Disaster prevention project effectiveness analysis system
110: Direct effect analysis unit
120: Indirect effect analysis department
130: Matrix analysis unit
140: Effect judgment unit
150: Effect supplement section
160: information storage unit
170: control unit

Claims (18)

A step where the direct effect analysis department performs a regional cost benefit analysis (CBA) based on the disaster prevention project information set by the user to derive direct effect analysis result information;
A step where the indirect effect analysis unit analyzes the safety perception information of residents in each region and the disaster budget information for each region based on the disaster prevention project information set by the user to derive indirect effect analysis result information;
A matrix analysis unit generating an evaluation matrix based on the direct effect analysis result and indirect effect analysis result information, and calculating the average value of the direct effect analysis result and the indirect effect analysis result; and
A step of determining that the effect of the disaster prevention project for the region is high by the effect determination unit classifying regions in which both the direct effect analysis result and the indirect effect analysis result are above the average value on the evaluation matrix into a group with high effectiveness;
A method for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that it includes. According to clause 1,
In the step where the matrix analysis unit generates an evaluation matrix based on the direct effect analysis result and indirect effect analysis result information,
Creating a first evaluation matrix using regional cost-benefit analysis information from the direct effect analysis and regional residents' safety perception information from the indirect effect analysis; and
Generating a second evaluation matrix using regional cost-benefit analysis information from direct effect analysis and regional disaster budget information from indirect effect analysis;
A method of analyzing the effectiveness of a disaster prevention project comprising: According to clause 1,
After the effectiveness judgment unit classifies the group with high effectiveness,
A method of analyzing the effectiveness of a disaster prevention project, which further includes classifying regions in which at least one of the direct effect analysis results and the indirect effect analysis results are below the average value on the evaluation matrix into a low-effectiveness group. According to clause 3,
A method of analyzing the effectiveness of a disaster prevention project, characterized in that the effectiveness supplementation unit further includes moving regions classified into the low-effectiveness group to a high-effectiveness group using preset supplementary information. According to clause 4,
The above supplementary information is a method of analyzing the effectiveness of a disaster prevention project, characterized in that it includes information on ways to improve residents' sense of safety in the disaster prevention project and information on adjusting the size of the disaster safety budget. According to clause 1,
The cost-benefit analysis is a method of analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that the cost-benefit analysis is performed using equation (1) below.
(One)

Bi: Benefit (present value of damage amount),
Cj: Cost (present value of investment costs such as construction costs),
r: Discount rate (5.5% applied),
t: Time (50 years applied) According to clause 6,
The benefit (Bi) includes human damage, casualty damage, crop damage, and other damage, and the human casualty damage, casualty damage, crop damage, and other damage are calculated using equations (2) to (5) below. How to analyze the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects.
(2) Human casualties = Number of lives lost per flooded area (people/ha) × loss unit (input unit) × flooded area (ha)
(3) Damage amount to victims = victims per flooded area (persons/ha) × number of evacuation days (days) × average daily income (KRW/person, day) × flooded area (ha)
(4) Crop damage = Flooded area (ha) × Yield (volume/ha) × Crop damage rate (%) × Crop unit price (KRW/volume)
(5) Other damage = Constant term (A) + Flooded area term (B) × Base price × Flood frequency rate According to clause 1,
A method for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that the perceived safety of residents in each region is performed through equations (6) and (7) below.
(6) Perceived safety of residents by region (%) = (Number of people protected from projects/Number of people who think it is unsafe) × 100
(7) Number of people who think it is unsafe (people) = (number of local population × ratio of people who think it is unsafe)/100 According to clause 1,
A method for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that the disaster budget for each region is carried out using equation (8) below.
(8) Disaster budget by region (%) = Disaster budget ratio of region × Number of protected population)/Number of regional population A direct effect analysis department that derives direct effect analysis result information by performing regional cost benefit analysis (CBA) based on disaster prevention project information set by the user;
An indirect effect analysis department that derives indirect effect analysis result information by analyzing the safety perception information of residents in each region and disaster budget information by region based on the disaster prevention project information set by the user;
A matrix analysis unit that generates an evaluation matrix based on the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis result information and calculates the average value of the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results;
An effect determination unit that classifies regions in which both the direct effect analysis results and the indirect effect analysis results on the evaluation matrix are above the average value into a group with high effectiveness, and determines that the disaster prevention project for the region is highly effective;
an information storage unit in which the user's input information is stored and information processed by the direct effect analysis unit, indirect effect analysis unit, matrix analysis unit, and effect determination unit is stored in a memory; and
A control unit that controls signal processing of the direct effect analysis unit, indirect effect analysis unit, matrix analysis unit, effect determination unit, and information storage unit;
A disaster prevention project effectiveness analysis system comprising: According to clause 10,
The matrix analysis unit,
Create the first evaluation matrix using regional cost-benefit analysis information from direct effect analysis and regional residents' safety perception information from indirect effect analysis, and regional cost-benefit analysis information from direct effect analysis and regional disaster budget information from indirect effect analysis. An effect analysis system for disaster prevention projects characterized by generating a second evaluation matrix using the disaster prevention project. According to clause 10,
The effect determination unit,
An effect analysis system for disaster prevention projects characterized by classifying regions in which at least one of the direct effect analysis results and indirect effect analysis results on the evaluation matrix is below the average value into a low-effectiveness group. According to clause 12,
An effect analysis system for disaster prevention projects that additionally includes an effectiveness supplementary unit to move regions classified into the low-effectiveness group to the high-effectiveness group using preset supplementary information. According to clause 13,
The supplementary information is a system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that it includes information on ways to improve residents' sense of safety in disaster prevention projects and information on adjusting the size of the disaster safety budget. According to clause 10,
The cost-benefit analysis is an effect analysis system for disaster prevention projects, characterized in that the cost-benefit analysis is performed using equation (1) below.
(One)

Bi: Benefit (present value of damage amount),
Cj: Cost (present value of investment costs such as construction costs),
r: Discount rate (5.5% applied),
t: Time (50 years applied) According to clause 15,
The benefit (Bi) includes human damage, casualty damage, crop damage, and other damage, and the human casualty damage, casualty damage, crop damage, and other damage are calculated using equations (2) to (5) below. A system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects.
(2) Human casualties = Number of lives lost per flooded area (people/ha) × loss unit (input unit) × flooded area (ha)
(3) Damage amount to victims = victims per flooded area (persons/ha) × number of evacuation days (days) × average daily income (KRW/person, day) × flooded area (ha)
(4) Crop damage = Flooded area (ha) × Yield (volume/ha) × Crop damage rate (%) × Crop unit price (KRW/volume)
(5) Other damage = Constant term (A) + Flooded area term (B) × Base price × Flood frequency rate According to clause 10,
A system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that the perceived safety of residents in each region is performed through equations (6) and (7) below.
(6) Perceived safety of residents by region (%) = (Number of people protected from projects/Number of people who think it is unsafe) × 100
(7) Number of people who think it is unsafe (people) = (number of local population × ratio of people who think it is unsafe)/100 According to clause 10,
A system for analyzing the effectiveness of disaster prevention projects, characterized in that the disaster budget for each region is carried out through equation (8) below.
(8) Disaster budget by region (%) = Disaster budget ratio of region × Number of protected population)/Number of regional population