Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning (농촌계획)

Korean Society of Rural Planning (한국농촌계획학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Biotope Structure of Grade Classification in terms of Nature Experience and Recreation Value - In case of Gwangmyeong-Siheung Bogeumjari Housing District -

자연체험 및 휴양가치 등급 설정을 위한 비오톱 구조분석 - 광명시흥 보금자리 주택지구를 대상으로 -

  • Ra, Jung-Hwa (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Cho, Hyun-Ju (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Hyun-Taek (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Hyo (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Park, Cheon-Jin (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2011.07.21
  • Accepted : 2011.09.06
  • Published : 2011.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research The main focus of this research is to provide basic data for concrete recreation planning of future site by selecting Gwangmyeong-Siheung housing district, large residential development district focused on rural areas, by evaluation of recreation value and detailed biotope type classification. The main results of analysis are as follows. As a result of basic survey of the research area, total 79 family and 307 taxonomic groups are identified and also naturalization index and urbanization index were estimated 16.6 % and 17.6% respectively. Also, as a result of biotope type classification, it is divide into 12 biotope type gorups including forest biotope type group and its subordinate 53 biotop types. As a result of first value evaluation, there are total 13 biotope types such as vegetation-full artificial rivers in I grade. In addition it is analyzed as 9 types of II grade, 5 types of III grade, 8 types of IV grade, 18 types of V grade. Lastly, as a result of second evauation, it is analyzed that there are 21 special meaningful areas for recreation and natural experience(1a, 1b), and 50 meaningful areas for recreation and natural experience(2a, 2b, 2c). It is regarded that the results of biotope types classification and recreation value from this research play roles of analyzing the Suitable site for recreation area before development in terms of large residential development district, and then these results provide important basic data to secure recreational and natural experience area in development planning.

Keywords

References

  1. 고동완, 2007, 여가휴양 공공서비스로서 공원녹지 조성방향, 경기관광연구, 10, 91-117.
  2. 김귀곤, 김훈희, 2007, 도시지속성지표 개발과 적용에 관한 연구, 대한국토도시계획학회지, 32(3), 175-195.
  3. 김귀곤, 조동길, 차영두, 황기현, 2000, 생태공원조성을 위한 식재설계방법의 개발-시각적 선호도와 생태적 다양성의 상호관련성을 중심으로-, 한국조경학회지, 27(5), 12-24.
  4. 나정화, 2001, Hemeroby 도면작성과 녹지계획에서의 활용: 대구시를 사례로, 한국조경학회지, 29(2), 32-41.
  5. 나정화, 도후조, 2003, 자연체험 및 휴양기능을 중심으로 한 도시밀집지역 비오톱 평가, 한국조경학회지, 31(1), 42-53.
  6. 나정화, 이석철, 2000, 대도시의 비오톱 구조분석-자연체험 및 휴양의 관점에서-, 한국조경학회지, 28(3), 72-87.
  7. 류연수, 2000, 도시 비오톱의 평가지표 설정, 경북대학교 조경학과 석사학위논문.
  8. 사공정희, 2004, 대도시의 경관생태적 녹지연계망 구축 방안, 경북대학교 조경학과 박사학위논문.
  9. 성남시, 2004, 비오톱 등급평가 및 도시생태현황도(Biotop Map) GIS 구축, 189-214.
  10. 서울특별시, 2005, 도시생태현황도 정비, 165-176.
  11. 연평식, 신원섭, 2003, 산림휴양으로부터 얻는 편익의 규명, 산림휴양학회지, 7(2), 27-36.
  12. 예천군, 2005, 애플밸리 조성사업 기본계획 수립, 3-228.
  13. 조창우, 2003, 택지개발사업지구내 근린공원의 입지 유형별 개발실태분석, 경북대학교 농업개발대학원 석사학위논문.
  14. 조현주, 나정화, 사공정희, 류연수, 2009, 농촌비오톱 유형분류 및 특성분석, 농촌계획, 15(4), 19-32.
  15. 조현주, 이현택, 사공정희, 나정화, 2010, 비오톱의 자연체험 및 휴양가치 평가모형 개발과 적용, 한국조경학회지, 38(4), 11-24.
  16. 한국토지주택공사, 2010, 광명시흥 보금자리주택지구 조성사업 환경영향평가서.
  17. 홍영록, 권상준, 명헌, 1999, 지방도시의 지속가능성 평가모형, 한국조경학회지 27(4), 1-12.
  18. 환경부, 2008, 비오톱 유형별 보전 및 복원기법 개발. 차세대 핵심환경기술개발사업 1차년도 보고서, 88-96.
  19. Bauer. G., K. Gerresheim und U. Kisker, 1976, Landschftsrahmenplan Erholungspark Ville, Beitraege zur Landesentwicklung, 35, 149-173.
  20. 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
  21. Garbrecht, D. and U. Matthes, 1980, Entscheidungshilfen fuer die Freiraumplanung, ILS Band 2.026. Dortmund, 307-312.
  22. Goossen, M. and F. Langers, 2000, Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: Finding the most Important Indicators for Recreation, Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00058-4
  23. Lewis, C. A., 1973, People Plants Interaction, A New Horticultural Perspective Horticulturist, 65, 16-21.
  24. LOELF, 1987, Biotopkartierung NW und Methodik und Arbeitsanleitung, Recklinghausen, 40-49.
  25. Marks, R., 1989, Methoden Oekologischer Planug im Kommunalen Umweltschutz am Beispiel der Stadt Dortmund, VGFO Band 18. Goettingen, 589-592.
  26. Paul, H. G. and L. M. Westphal, 2004, The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2

Cited by

  1. A Study on Application of Landscape Diagnosis Index and Landscape Formation Plan of Rural Villages vol.19, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2013.19.4.149