Shapley Value를 이용한 안양천 유역 통합관리 계획에 따른 비용분담방안의 연구 = A Study on Cost Division Scheme Using Shapley Value for Integrated Watershed Management Planning for Anyang-cheon, Korea

국문 초록 (Abstract)

안양천은 서울의 한강에 유입되는 대표적 도시하천이다. 도시화로 인한 안양천 하천수질 악화와 건천화 문제를 개선하기 위해 유역통합관리를 위한 여러 사업이 진행되고 있다. 유역통합관리를 위해서는 관련 지자체들의 공조가 필요하게 되며, 재정분담문제가 필연적으로 발생하게 된다. 본 연구에서는 유역통합관리를 위해 제안된 사업비 261억의 4개 소유역의 비용분담 방안을 Shapley Value를 이용하여 제안하고 이를 다른 2개 분담방안들과 비교하였다. ‘분담방안 1’은 수질개선시설이 설치되는 유역의 지자체가 비용을 부담하는 방안으로, 소유역 I지역은 0.58%, 소유역 II지역은 29.54%, 소유역 IV지역은 0%, 그리고 소유역 V지역은 69.88%의 비용을 분담하게 된다. ‘분담방안 2’는 각 소유역의 소하천길이에 따라 비용을 분담하는 것으로, 13개 지자체들의 교섭력이 동일하다는 것을 전제로 하고 있으며, 소유역 I지역은 13.76%, II지역은 7.34%, IV지역은 45.87%, V지역은 33.03%의 분담을 해야 한다. 하지만 하천의 물 흐름은 상중하류의 각 지자체에 서로 다른 교섭력을 부여하므로, 공조적 게임의 解인 shapley Value를 이용하여 교섭력을 고려한 재정분담방안인 ‘분담방안 3’으로 비용분담체계를 설계하였다. 모든 가능한 공조체제에 있어 각 참여자들의 평균 한계기여도의 합으로 측정되는 Shapley Value에 의한 분담비율은 I지역 0.29%, II지역은 14.77%, IV지역 50.00%, V지역은 34.94%이며, 이를 지자체들이 수용 가능한, ‘공정한’ 재정분담방안으로 제시하였다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Anyang-cheon(stream) runs through southern metropolitan area of Seoul to Han-river in Korea. Due to fast growth of Seoul, the water quality and quantity problems in Anyang-cheon have occurred. To cope with the problems, the Integrated Watershed Management program for Anyang-cheon was adopted and a KRW 26.1 billion (USD 21.8 million) pilot project (construction of 4 facilities such as reservoir) is suggested for 4 sub-watersheds of Anyang-cheon, which cost will be shared by the 12 local governments (LG). Three cost division schemes are compared. By Scheme 1, if the cost is borne by the LG in a watershed where the facilities are constructed (no cost division scheme), the LG in I is to bear 0.58% of the total construction cost, LG in watershed II 29.54%, LG in IV 0%, LG in V 69.88%. In particular, LG in IV in this scheme bears no cost because no facility is constructed, even though watershed IV is the major beneficiary of the facility construction. Scheme 2 is to share the cost by length of streams in each sub-watershed and the suggested cost share for each sub-watershed is 13.76% by I, 7.34% by II, 45.87% by IV, and 33.03% by V. However, this cost division scheme is fair only under the false assumption that the bargaining powers of group of LGs are identical. To suggest a better and fair division rule, Shapley Value, a cooperative game solution, is used to suggest Scheme 3. In Scheme 3, Shapley Value measures the summation of average marginal contribution of each player in all possible coalitions as cost division scheme and is known to provide a fair division considering bargaining power. In the context of Anyang-cheon, LGs in upper stream have superior bargaining position. The result suggests the cost division is fair under Scheme 3, when the cost shares are 0.29% by I, 14.77% by II, 50% by IV, and 34.94% by V, respectively.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 한국개발연구원, "예비타당성 조사 수행을 위한 일반지침"

2 이길성, "안양천 유역의 물순환 건전화 기술개발" 서울대학교, 과학기술부 2007

3 공기서, "물순환 건전화 대안 적용을 위한 안양천의 속성별가치추정" 한국수자원학회 39 (39): 1031-1042, 1042

4 허가형, "기후변화협약과 온실가스저감에 관한 게임이론적 분석" 서울대학교 환경대학원 2005

5 성숙경, "게임이론 접근법에 의한 부산항 컨테이너부두의 비용배분에 관한 연구" 한국항만경제학회 24 (24): 23-35, 2008

6 Fernandez, Linda, "Wastewater pollution abatement across an international border" 14 : 67-88, 2008

7 Fisher, Franklin, "WAS‐guided cooperation in water: the grand coalition and sub‐coalitions" 14 : 89-115, 2008

8 Dinar, Ariel, "To negotiate or to game theorize: evaluating water allocation mechanisms in the Kat basin, South Africa, in: Essay in Game Theory and Policymaking in Natural Resources and the Environment" Routledge 2008

9 강동주, "The application of game theories to power transaction analysis" 홍익대학교 대학원 2001

10 Roth, Alvin, "The Shapley Value: Essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley" Cambridge University Press 1999

11 Shapley, L. S., "Notes on the n‐person games, II: The value of an n‐person game. RAND Publication RM‐670"

12 Owen, Guillermo, "Game Theory, 2nd edition" Academic Press, Inc 1982

13 Friedman, James W., "Game Theory with Application to Economics" Oxford University Press 1990

14 Shubik, Martin, "Game Theory in the Social Sciences" MIT Press 1991

15 Hanley, N., "Game Theory and the Environment" Edward Elgar 1998

16 Dinar, A., "Game Theory and Policy Making in Natural Resources and the Environment" Routledge 2008

17 Carraro, C., "Game Practice and the Environment" Edward Elgar 2004

18 Sumaila, Rashid, "Environment and Development Economics" 14 : 1-5, 2008

19 Ambec, Stefan, "Cooperation and equity in the river‐sharing problem, in: Essay in Hanley, essay in Game Theory and Policymaking in Natural Resources and the Environment" 2008

20 Botteon, M., "Burden‐sharing and coalition stability in environmental negotiations with asymmetric countries. International Environmental Negotiations: Strategic Policy Issues, ch. 3" Edward Elgar 26-55, 1997

21 Finus, Michael, "An empirical test of new developments in coalition theory for the design of international environmental agreements" 14 : 117-137, 2008

22 Shapley, L. S, "A value for n‐person games, in: Contribution to the Theory of Games, vol. 2" Princeton University Press 1953

23 Song, Yanghoon, "A Game Theoretic Approach to the Political Economy of the Korean Rice Market" University of Illinois, Urbana‐Champaign 1998