Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지

Development of Designation Criteria for Ecological Protected Areas and its Application Methodology

생태계 보호지역의 합리적 지정을 위한 평가방법의 개발과 적용방안

  • Received : 2008.03.10
  • Accepted : 2008.05.20
  • Published : 2008.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Attempts to develope designation criteria for ecological protected areas were made for rational and scientific designation and management of 'ecosystem and landscape conservation areas', 'wetland protection areas', 'special islands protection areas', and 'wildlife protected areas' which have been designated and managed by the Ministry of Environment. Through analysis of the requisites and criteria of IUCN, UNESCO, Natura 2000, the Ramsar convention, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany as well as various academic researches, evaluation items of the protected areas were classified into naturalness, biodiversity, ecosystem, and scientific values. These classification titles are reflection of Korean laws concerning the 4 protected areas described above. Of these items 'naturalness' is composed of 3 factors of wilderness, geomorphology and landscape, and vegetation. 'Biodiversity' is composed of the 5 factors of species diversity, endangered species, rare species, indigenous biological resources, and habitat of wetland wild animals. 'Ecosystem' is composed of 5 factors of typicalness, diversity, rarity, restoration ability, and degree of interference. All factors are scored using a 3 point scale of high, middle, or low and are then transformed into the numerical index for designating and zoning purposes. Conclusively, it is expected that the developed methodology will be highly applicable with field verifications.

Keywords

References

  1. 구본학, 김귀곤, 2001, RMA(일반기능평가기법)을 이용한 내륙습지 기능평가, 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지, 4(3), 38-48
  2. 김성일, 이영주, 허학영, 김현, 2006, 우리나라 보호지역에 IUCN 카테고리 채택방안-국립공원을 중심으로, 국립공원관리공단
  3. 남정호, 최지연, 육근형, 최희정, 2004, 연안.해양 보호구역 통합관리체제 구축방안 연구, 한국해양수산개발원 233쪽
  4. 남정호, 장원근, 최지연, 육근형, 최희정, 이원갑, 2005, 서해연안 해양평화공원 지정 및 관리 방안 연구(1), 한국해양수산개발원, 27:1-390
  5. 박용하, 전동준, 최재용, 서경원, 반지연, 허수진, 2006, 선진외국 보호지역의 관리기법 연구, 환경부
  6. 박용하, 이현우, 김기경, 이관규, 서경원, 경지현, 박진희, 허수진, 2007, 생태계보호지역 지정 기준 객관화 연구, 환경부
  7. 신현탁, 2000, 보전우선순위에 근거한 자연생태계 보전지역 평가기준에 관한 연구, 박사학위논문, 영남대학교 대학원
  8. 최재용, 최윤호, 유진아, 김현이, 2006, 남극 환경 보호구역 지정에 관한 연구, 환경부
  9. 환경부, 2004, 백두대간 보호지역의 지정원칙과 기준안, 내부자료
  10. 환경부, 2005, 보도자료: 왕피천 유역 생태.경관 보전지역으로 지정, 해양수산부
  11. 해양수산부, 2005, 해양보호구역 관리체계 구축연구, 해양수산부
  12. 日本 環境省, 2006, Nature Conservation in Japan. Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment. p51
  13. Diamond, J. M., 1975, The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves, Biological Consenvation, 7, 129-146 https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(75)90052-X
  14. Disney, R. H. L., 1986, Assessments using invertebrates: Posing the problem, M. B. Usher, M. B. (eds). Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman & Hall, London, p271-293
  15. Freeman, C., 1999, Development of a simple method for site survey and assessment in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44, 1-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00114-5
  16. Freitag S. and Van Jaarsver, A. S., 1997, Relative occupancy. endermism, taxonomic distinctiveness and vulnerability: Prioritizing regional conservation actions, Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 211-232 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018392019594
  17. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, BfN), 2006, Nature Conservation Areas, http://www.bfn.de
  18. IUCN(International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 1994, Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories
  19. IUCN, 2007, http://www.iucn.org
  20. Natura 2000, 2008, Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010-and beyond sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being, Commission of The European Communities, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm
  21. Ohio EPA, 2001, Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands. Version 5.0. Background Information Score Boundary Worksheet Narrative Rating Categorization Worksheets Field Scoring Form (2001.2.1), Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water
  22. Primack, B. R., 1998, Essentials of conservation biology (2nd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc. p397-479
  23. Ramsar Convention(Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat), 2007, http://www.ramsar.org
  24. Ranney, J. W., Bruner, M. C., and Levenson, J. B. 1981., The importance of edge in the structure and dynamics of forest islands. Burgess, R. L., and Sharpe, D. M. (eds). Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. Springer Verlag Pless, New York, p67-95
  25. Ratcliffe, D. A., 1977, A nature conservation review, Camhridge University Press, 1, 6-10
  26. Ronald G. O., 1996, Ecological Criteria for Evaluating Wetlands, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center
  27. Salm, R. V., Clark, J. and Siirila. E. 2000, Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A guide for planners and managers, IUCN, Washington DC., xxi+ pp.371
  28. UK DEFRA(Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), 2007, http://www.defra.gov.uk
  29. UK Nature Conservancy Council, 1989, Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs, http://www.countryside.gov.uk; http://www.countryside.gov.uk
  30. UNESCO, 1996, The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. http://www.unesco.org
  31. USDI-NPS(US. Department of Interior-National Park Service), 2007, Criteria for Parkland. http://www.nps.gov/legacy/criteria.html
  32. Usher. M. B., 1980, An assessment of conservation values within a large site of special scientific interest in north yorkshire, Field Studies, 5, 323-348
  33. World Heritage Centre, 2005, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO-World Heritage Centre Press