Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Determining the priority order of wetland functions

내륙습지 기능의 우선순위 결정

  • Lee, Seungjun (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Choi, Hyun-Ah (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Woo-Kyun (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Jong Yeol (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Jeon, Seong Woo (Division of Natural Resources Conservation, Korea Environment Institute) ;
  • Kim, Joonsoon (Department of Forest Management, Kangwon National University)
  • 이승준 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 최현아 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 이우균 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 이종렬 (고려대학교 환경생태공학과) ;
  • 전성우 (한국환경정책.평가연구원 환경정보연구실) ;
  • 김준순 (국립강원대학교 산림경영학과)
  • Received : 2014.02.27
  • Accepted : 2014.05.27
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, the functional priority of wetlands was determined through analysis of previous research. To determine relative importance, three processes were performed. First, quantitative values from the case studies were normalized. Second, non-quantitative values were prioritized based on standard criteria. Third, equal weight was applied as long as there was no special consideration regarding a particular value's disproportionate priority in the research. Finally, results were grouped into large, medium, and small classes.In this study, the functions of the medium class were found to be the most significant, in the following order of priority: water supply and ground water recharge; culture and recreation; biodiversity; product; water quality control; flood control; erosion control; moderation of climate change; and provision of biochemical matter. To verify these results, we compared our findings with those of an assessment that used the Rapid Assessment Method (RAM) on the same type of study area. Whereas this comparison indicated some correlations by the culture, water storage, and genetic sustainability functions, it suggested a lack of such relationship by the water purification and flood prevention functions.

Keywords

References

  1. 강만옥 등, 2008, 우리나라 주요 습지의 경제적 가치 평가 연구, 한국환경정책.평가연구원보고서.
  2. 강수진, 2004, 습지기능을 고려한 한국 내륙습지의 간이 평가 기법 개발 및 적용, 석사학위논문, 이화여자대학교.
  3. 구본학, 김귀곤, 2001, RAM(일반기능평가기법)을 이용한 내륙 습지 기능 평가, 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지 4(3), 38-48.
  4. 구본학 등, 2008, 국가습지유형분류체계 연구, 환경부 UNDP/GEF 국가습지보전사업관리단최종보고서.
  5. 김종호, 이경학, 박찬우, 서정원, 손영모, 김경하, 윤호중, 박찬열, 이승우, 오정수, 2006, 산림의 공익기능 평가, 한국산림휴양학회지, 10(2), 7-15.
  6. 김형수, 김재근, 유병국, 2009, 4대강 생태습지조성모델 및 평가기법개발 연구, 국토해양부보고서.
  7. 신한규, 김덕길, 김재근, 김형수, 안재현, 유병국, 안경수, 박두호, 2009, 댐습지의 기능 및 가치평가 연구(1) -HGM을 이용한 기능평가:보령댐을 대상으로, 한국습지학회지, 11(3), 115-132.
  8. 오경두, 2009, 녹색성장을 위한 습지의 재조명, 물과 미래, 42(12), 10-30.
  9. 윤선하, 김덕길, 김형수, 2009 하천변 습지의 기능평가 연구, 대한토목학회, 2009, 대한토목학회 정기학술대회, 3431-3434.
  10. 이관규 등, 2010, 국가습지의 유형별.등급별 분류 및 유형별 습지복원 매뉴얼 작성 연구, 환경부 보고서.
  11. 이상영, 2007, 제주초지의 사회, 문화적 기능 가치평가 및 보전방안, 농촌계획, 13(4), 23-30.
  12. 전우송 등, 2007, 제1차 국가습지 인벤토리 구축사업, 환경부 UNDP/GEF 국가습지보전사업관리단 최종보고서.
  13. 환경부, 2011, 제3차 전국내륙습지 조사지침 작성연구.
  14. Barbier, E. B., M. C. Acreman, and D. Knowler, 1997. Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
  15. Brinson, M. M., R. D. Rheinhardt, F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Smith, and Whigham, D., 1995, A Guide for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessment to Riverine Wetlands, US Army Corps of Engineers.
  16. Brouwer, R., Langford, I. H., Bateman, I. J., and Turner, R. K, 1999, A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies, Regional Environmental Change, 1(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101130050007
  17. Costanza, R. et al., 1997, The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387(15), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  18. de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., and Boumans, R. M., 2002, A typology for classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions goods and services, Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
  19. Ghermandi, A., Van den Bergh, J., Brander, L., De Groot, H., and Dias Nunes, P., 2008, The Economic Value of Wetland Conservation and Creation: A Meta-Analysis, NOTA DI LAVORO, 79, 2008.
  20. Hammitt, J. K., Liu, J. T., and Liu, J. L., 2001, Contingent valuation of a Taiwanese wetland, Environment and Development Economics, 6(2), 259-268.
  21. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  22. Ramsar, 1971, A global action plan for the wise use and management of peatlands-Recommendation of the Ramsar Convention on wetlands, San Jose, Costa Rica, 10-18 May 1999.
  23. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2006, The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 4th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
  24. Robert, M., 1998, Wetlands Environmental Assessment Guideline, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
  25. Sutula M. A., Stein, E. D., Collins, J. N., Fetscher, A. E., and Clark, R., 2006, A Practical Guide for the Development of a Wetland Assessment Method: the California Experience, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, February.
  26. Teracino, L., 2012, A world in our backyard, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chapter 3 Wetland Functions.
  27. Tilton, D. L., Karen, S., Brian, B., and Thomas, W., 2001, A Wetland Protection Plan for the Lower One Subwatershed of the Rouge River, Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.
  28. Whigham, D. F., 1999, Ecological issues related to wetland preservation, restoration, creation and assessment, The Science of the Total Environment, 240(1999), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00321-6
  29. Woodward R. T., and Wui, Y., 2001, The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis, Ecological Economics, 37(2), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7

Cited by

  1. Design Strategies for Ecological Restoration Using System Dynamics - Focused on 2015 Miryang-si Jayeon Madang Development Project - vol.43, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2015.43.6.086