<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01539nam a22001457a 4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">524643</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">524643</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">240109b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Kim, Hyung Min </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">47869</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Peri-urban rent gap and land value capture by government-led urban development in South Korea</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Environment &amp; Urbanization  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">35(2), Oct, 2023: p.328-348</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This research investigates a South Korean land value capture experience in peri-urban development. With the growing demand for urban land, rent gaps grew. A South Korean public development scheme, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (HSDPA), enabled a public development agency to financialize and recoup the rent gaps by allowing for land acquisition at agricultural value. Hence, these peri-urban projects were self-funded in providing infrastructure at &#x201C;no cost&#x201D; to the government. A case study &#x2013; of Yongin-Jukjeon on the periphery of Seoul &#x2013; reveals that the rent gap between pre-development and post-development was over fivefold, and the public development agency achieved an internal rate of return of 262 per cent after paying for decent-quality infrastructure facilities by the national standard. Despite the size of this return, the rent gap was also shared among and reallocated to other key actors including original landowners, construction companies and end-users. &#x2013; Reproduced 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09562478231205369
</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Environment &amp; Urbanization  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">URBAN DEVELOPMENT</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">399699</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2024-01-09</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">35(2), Oct, 2023: p.328-348</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR130474</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2024-01-09</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
