Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning (농촌계획)

Korean Society of Rural Planning (한국농촌계획학회)
권호 표지

The Type Classification and Characteristic Analysis of Biotope in Rural Areas

농촌비오톱 유형분류 및 특성분석

  • Cho, Hyun-Ju (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Ra, Jung-Hwa (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • SaGong, Jung-Hee (Environmental and Ecological Research Department, Chung-nam Development Institute) ;
  • Ryu, Yeon-Su (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
  • 조현주 (경북대학교 대학원 조경학과) ;
  • 나정화 (경북대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 사공정희 (충남발전연구원 환경생태연구부) ;
  • 류연수 (뉴저지 럿거스 주립대학교 조경학과)
  • Published : 2009.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research has a significant meaning to break from the urban ecology-oriented biotope research and realize the importance of rural landscape as a reserve area for systemizing the types of rural biotope. The results are as follows. First of all, items for classification of 16 rural biotope areas are designed and total 9 itmes in slope from spatial structural point of view and 7 items in minute-variety from functional point of view. Also, as the result of on-site research on case areas based on classified items, there are 46 types of rural biotope such as coniferous forest, hedgerow and so on. For example, it is proven that uncultivated stripe showed the most frequent emergence. As a result of cluster analysis of average linkage method between clusters, 12 clusters are classified as a clusters and 13 biotope types are re-corrected and complemented through brainstorming process and then total 12 clusters are selected as final rural biotope type groups. As a rural biotope type cluster and character analysis according to types based on on-site research and documentary survey, for example, it is analyzed that the ratio of transmissible covering ratio is 100%, the ratio of green coverage is 90% in 'woodland in cultivated area biotope type cluster'.

Keywords

References

  1. 광양시, 2006, 생태지도(Biotop Map) 및 현황도 제작 연구보고서
  2. 김근호, 조동범, 김미향, 2006, 비오톱유형에 의한 농촌생태마을의 경관생태학적 특성분석-환경부지정 생태마을 중 전남 일부 지역을 대상으로-, 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지, 9(6), 63-77
  3. 김귀곤, 2000, 21세기 생태환경 조성을 위한 새로운 조경기법, 서울, 도서출판 누리에
  4. 나정화, 채인홍, 사공정희, 류연수, 2003, 도시계획 지역 내 농경지의 잔여경관요소에 대한 경관생태학적 평가 및 보존 방안, 한국조경학회지, 31(5), 31-42
  5. 노형진, 2005, SPSS 12.0에 의한 조사방법 및 통계분석, 서울, 형설출판사
  6. 류연수, 2000, 도시 비오톱의 평가지표 설정, 경북대학교 석사학위논문
  7. 서울특별시, 2000, 도시생태 개념의 도시계획에의 적용을 위한 서울시 비오톱 현황조사 및 생태도시조성지침수립-1차년도 보고서-, 48
  8. 서울특별시, 2005, 도시생태현황도 정비, 165-176
  9. 성남시, 2001, 도시생태현황도(Biotop Map)제작 및 GIS 구축사업(1차년도) 연구보고서
  10. 윤광성, 2007, 묵논 습지의 토양 및 식생 특성, 한국지역지리학회지, 13(2), 129-142
  11. 조영동, 1998, 도시 생태계 보전을 위한 비오토프맵핑의 적용과 활용방안에 관한 연구-수치지도의 도입과 GIS활용을 중심으로-, 서울대학교 석사학위논문
  12. 조현주, 나정화, 2008, 경작지 내 소규모 수림의 경관생태적 특성 분석, 경북대학교농학지, 26, 17-22
  13. 창원시, 2009, 창원시 환경지도 제작 및 GIS구축 연구용역(1단계), 창원시.창원대학교 산학협력단
  14. 최일기, 오충현, 이은희, 2008, 전국적 적용을 위한 비오톱유형분류 제안, 한국환경생태학회지, 22(6), 666-678
  15. 한국토지공사, 2007, 대구신서 생태환경계획 수립, 23-77
  16. 환경부, 2009, 환경부 차세대 핵심환경기술개발사업, 비오톱 유형별 보전 및 복원기법 개발 2차년도 보고서
  17. Andre, B. L. and J. Ahern, 2002, Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning, Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 65-93 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00005-1
  18. Bernd, M., B. Nygaard, R. Ejrnæs and H. G. Bruun, 2001, A biotope landscape model for prediction of semi-natural vegetation in Denmark, Eclological Modelling, 139, 221-233 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00244-7
  19. Davis, J. C., 1986, Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, New York: John Wiley
  20. Edward, A. C., 2002, Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 269-280 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00226-2
  21. Forman, R. T. T., 1995, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press
  22. Forman, R. T. T., 2000, Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United. Conservation Biology, 14, 31-35 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99299.x
  23. Forys, E. and S. R. Humphrey, 1999, The importance of patch attributes and context to the management and recovery of an endangered lagomorph, Landscape Ecology, 14, 177-185 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008013831843
  24. Kaerkes, W., 1986, Zur oekologischen Bedeutung urbaner Freiflaechen, Diss. Univ. Bochum, pp. 281-284
  25. Laura R. M. and R. N. Coulson, 2001, Landscape ecological planning process for wetland, waterfowl, and farmland conservation, Landscape and Urban Planning, 56, 125-147 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00175-X
  26. Nakamura, T., 2000, Traditional agriculture landscape as an inportant model of ecological restoration in Japan, Natural History Museum & Institute
  27. Naveh, Z. and A. Lieberman, 1994, Landscape ecology: Theory and application, New York: Springer-Verlag
  28. Patton, D. R., 1975, A diversity index for quantifying habitat edge, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 394, 171-173
  29. Sara A.O. C. and M. Ihse, 1998, A methodological study for biotope and landscape mapping based on CIR aerial photographs, Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 183-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00057-7
  30. Schonewald-Cox, C. and J. W. Bayless, 1986, The boundary model: a geographic analysis of design and conservation of nature reserves, Biological Conservation, 38, 305-322 https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(86)90057-1
  31. Sukopp, H. and I. Kowarik, 1990, Urban ecology: Plants and Plant Communities in Urban Environments, The Hague, Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing