Page 56 - 241218_Islands_Of_Korea_Magazine

Islands of Korea, Islands of the World Analysis of the Performance of Korea’s Island Development of Standard Evaluation Tools for KIDI R&D

Comprehensive Development Plan
Island Development Projects

1. Necessity of Research 1. Necessity of Research
- The Island Development Promotion Act, enacted in 1986, aimed to preserve the importance and value of islands - This study aims to address the lack of an effective feedback system for the Island Development Projects by
while improving settlement conditions for island residents. This act led to the establishment of the 10-year statutory developing a standard evaluation tool.
Island Comprehensive Development Plan. - With growing attention on islands and concerns over population decline, the need for effective island development
- Since its first implementation in 1988, the plan has reached its fourth iteration (2018–2027). However, there has been policies has become increasingly significant.
no systematic performance analysis of the plan, highlighting a significant gap. - While Island Development Projects are being carried out under the Island Development Promotion Act, their
- This study aims to evaluate the performance of the Island Comprehensive Development Plan and provide recommen- effectiveness cannot be thoroughly assessed due to the absence of a robust feedback mechanism.
dations for its future direction. - This study aims to enhance the operational efficiency of these projects by creating an evaluation tool that can be
utilized for future assessments and consulting at the project-specific level.

2. Research Scope and Analysis Methodology

- The study focuses on the fourth plan, acknowledging differences in institutional foundations and the contexts of the
previous iterations.
2. Current Challenges and Evaluation Tool Development
- The analysis is limited to the planning level and does not evaluate individual project outcomes due to the lack of
measurable indicators and statistical data. 2-1. Insufficient Feedback System and Lack of Project-Specific Evaluations
- Performance was assessed based on the policy lifecycle, covering the following aspects: - The Island Development Promotion Act currently lacks provisions for individual project evaluations, and such
· Institutional foundation of the plan · Implementation of projects evaluations are instead incorporated into broader assessments under the Government Performance Evaluation Act.
Vol.01 · Appropriateness of plan development · Evaluation and feedback mechanisms - The budget structure for Island Development Projects is split between the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which group these projects under broader initiatives, making
independent evaluations of island-specific projects difficult.
3. Performance Analysis Results
2-2. Development and Validation of Evaluation Tools
- Institutional foundation: Identified issues include the ambiguous definition of development-designated islands, lack
- Drawing on evaluation tools from similar projects—such as the Best Island to Visit Pilot Project, Saeteul Village
of alignment with other master plans, and dual governance structures.
Project, Fishing Village New Deal Project, and other regional development initiatives—the study developed a phased
* Before 2009, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety managed the plan. After the Special Act on Balanced National
evaluation tool covering the lifecycle of projects (planning–implementation–completion).
Development was revised, governance was divided between the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (for Areas of
- To validate the evaluation tool:
Special Concern) and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (for Growth Promotion Areas), leading to
· Evaluator Perspective: Focus Group Interviews (FGI) were conducted with local government officials responsible for
administrative fragmentation.
implementing island development projects.
- Plan development: Goals and strategies lacked alignment with other master plans, and the plan was limited by its
· Appraisee Perspective: Expert consultations were held to assess the tool’s validity.
focus on facility-based projects.
- Insights from these sessions were combined to finalize the evaluation tool and provide detailed evaluation criteria
- Implementation: While project organization met the needs of different island types, unforeseen factors over time
and methodologies.
increased project volatility, reducing the plan’s overall relevance.
- Evaluation and feedback: Evaluations were constrained by limited tools and fragmented methodologies between
different administrative areas, hindering effective feedback and iterative improvement.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
3. Institutional Recommendations for Establishing a Feedback System
- Revise the Fourth Plan: Develop a revision that integrates island-related master plans, addresses inequality and
biased project implementation, and includes preliminary reviews by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and KIDI. - Amend the Island Development Promotion Act to establish legal grounds for evaluation systems, improving the
- Strengthen the master plan framework: Establish a unified master plan aligning the Island Comprehensive efficiency and sustainability of Island Development Projects.
Development Plan with other island-related strategies to promote efficient and balanced development. - Streamline the budgeting process by unifying it and separating it from other regional development projects to enable
- Create tailored master plans: Develop customized plans for each island, considering their specific lifecycle stages and independent assessments.
unique needs. - Develop quantitative indicators and an island statistics system to measure project outcomes effectively, ensuring
- Streamline governance and evaluation: Unify the governance structure and create a comprehensive evaluation reliable data for ongoing evaluations.
56 system to ensure meaningful feedback mechanisms for future plans. 57