Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment (생태와환경)

The Korean Society of Limnology (한국수생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diversity and Distribution of Natural Symbol Species as Local Government's Symbols (Bird, Flower, Tree): Identifying the Public Awareness on Biodiversity

지방자치단체 자연상징물(새, 꽃, 나무)의 다양성과 분포: 생물다양성의 인식도 평가

  • Do, Yuno (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Ji Yoon (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Im, Ran-Young (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Choi, Gi Ryong (The College of Natural Science, School of Biological Sciences, Ulsan University) ;
  • Joo, Gea-Jae (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University)
  • 도윤호 (부산대학교 생명과학과) ;
  • 김지윤 (부산대학교 생명과학과) ;
  • 임란영 (부산대학교 생명과학과) ;
  • 최기룡 (울산대학교 생명과학부 생명과학전공) ;
  • 주기재 (부산대학교 생명과학과)
  • Received : 2013.08.08
  • Accepted : 2013.09.25
  • Published : 2013.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We identified the diversity, geographical distribution, ecological characteristics of birds, trees, and flowers species designated as local government symbols as a means for understanding public awareness on biodiversity. A total of 114 species including 48 birds, 40 flowers, 36 tree species belonging to 40 orders 59 families 90 genus were designated as natural symbols. Pica pica (L.) in birds, Rhododendron schlippenbachii Maxim. among flowers, have also been designated as symbols. The tree Ginkgo biloba L. was designated with the highest frequency. Local governments located coastal area were selected bird species of the Laridae family and the tree species Camellia japonica L., of Pinaceae as their natural symbols. In contrast, local governments located inland have designated resident bird species such as P. pica and Columba rupestris (Pallas) and flower species from the Ericaceae as natural symbols widely distributed and easily observed throughout South Korea. However, many local governments have designated the same species as a natural symbol based on their size color and public appeal and popularity. The information about the popular species and their ecological traits are useful for establishing the criteria as flagship or iconic species selection and their roles in habitat conservation.

일반인들의 생물다양성 인식정도를 지방자치단체 및 기초자치단체의 자연상징물 (새, 꽃, 나무)의 종수로 파악한 결과 전체 종다양성은 40목 59과 90속 114종이 자연 상징물로 지정되어 있었다. 상징새 38종, 꽃 40종, 나무 36종이 지정되어 있었으며, 새는 까치, 꽃은 철쭉, 나무는 은행나무가 높은 빈도로 지정되었다. 연안에 위치한 지역에서는 갈매기과에 속한 새와 동백꽃, 소나무과에 속한 종을, 내륙에서는 까치나 비둘기와 같은 텃새류와 진달래과에 속한 식물종 등 주변에서 흔히 관찰되는 종들이 자연상징물로 지정되어 있었다. 자연상징물로 지정된 종들은 크기가 크거나 화려하며 대중적으로 인식정도 높은 종을 선정하였기 때문에 지역간 중복지정된 종들이 많았다. 대중들이 관심을 갖는 생물종들에 대한 정보가 축적되면 깃대종 또는 상징종을 지정기준을 설정하고 서식처 보전에 상징종을 이용하는 방안을 수립하는 데도 도움이 될 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bowen-Jones, E. and A. Entwistle. 2002. Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36: 189-195.
  2. Caro, T.M. and G. O'Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13: 805-814. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98338.x
  3. Choi, H. and H. Varian. 2012. Predicting the present with google trends. Economic Record 88: 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2012.00809.x
  4. Chol, Y.O., S.H. Kim and W.H. Chung. 2001. Comparative study of the varieties and numbers of the animals and plants in the biology textbooks of secondary schools in South and North Korea. Biology Education 29: 148-154.
  5. Clucas, B., K. McHugh and T. Caro. 2008. Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity & Conservation 17: 1517-1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9361-0
  6. Do, Y., H.A. Kim, S.B. Kim, R.Y. Im, S.K. Kim and G.J. Joo. 2012. Awareness and exploitation of wetland during the Joseon Dynasty. Korean Journal of Wetland Society 14: 329-340.
  7. Gotelli, N.J. and R.K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecological Letters 4: 379- 391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x
  8. Heerwagen, J.H. and G.H. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics, p. 138-172. In: The Biophilia Hypothesis (Kellert, S.R. and E.O. Wilson, eds.). Island Press, Washington.
  9. Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setala, A.J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer and D.A. Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922
  10. Hunter, L.M. and L. Rinner. 2004. The association between environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society and Natural Resources 17: 517-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490452454
  11. Hwang, H.S. 1997. The analysis of korean urban symbolsurban songs, urban birds, urban trees, and urban flowers. Korean Association of Regional Geographers 3: 227-253.
  12. Jones Jr, S.B. and A.E. Luchsinger. 1979. Plant systematics. McGraw-Hill.
  13. Jung, C.Y. and M.S. Kim. 2011. A study on regionality of local governments' symbols. Journal of Korean Urban Geographical Society 14: 17-34.
  14. Kassas, M. 2002. Environmental education: biodiversity. The Environmentalist 22: 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020766914456
  15. Lee, C.B. 2003. Coloured Flora of Korea (volume 1 and 2). Hyangmunsa.
  16. Lee, S.S. and K.B. Lee. 2012. Current statue of local governments' symbols. Journal of Chung-Ang Folkloristics 18: 37-210.
  17. Lee, W.S., T.H. Koo and J.Y. Park. 2005. A field guide to the birds of Korea. LG Evergreen Foundation.
  18. Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2002. The influence of an educational program on children's perception of biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Education 33: 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960209600805
  19. Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2005. Loveable' mammals and life less' plants: how children's interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education 27: 655- 677. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116
  20. Lindemann-Matthies, P. and E. Bose. 2008. How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology 36: 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9194-1
  21. Lofgren, O. 1985. Our friends in nature: Class and animal symbolism. Ethnos 50: 184-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.1985.9981302
  22. Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. 2000. Overview of local governments symbols. Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.
  23. Ministry of Home Affairs. 1987. Overview of my hometowns' symbols. Ministry of Home Affairs.
  24. Nee, S., A.O. Mooers and P.H. Harvey. 1992. Tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89: 8322-8326. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.17.8322
  25. Simpson, G.G. 1961. Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press.
  26. Whitehead, A.N. 1985. Symbolism: Its meaning and effect. Fordham University Press.
  27. Zmihorski, M., J. Dziarska-Palac, T.H. Sparks, and P. Tryjanowski. 2013. Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in Internet information resources. Oikos 122: 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20486.x