Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development and Application of Index Framework to Assess Cost-effectiveness of Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services in Korea

산림생태계서비스지불제의 비용효과성 평가를 위한 지수체계 개발 및 적용

  • Ahn, SoEun (Division of Environmental Strategy, Korea Environment Institute) ;
  • Rho, Paikho (Department of Environmental Planning, Keimyung University)
  • 안소은 (한국환경정책.평가연구원 환경전략연구실) ;
  • 노백호 (계명대학교 환경계획학과)
  • Received : 2016.03.09
  • Accepted : 2016.08.14
  • Published : 2016.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study is 1) to design an auction-type and area-based payments for ecosystem services (PES) in application to private forest in Korea, 2) to develop the framework of index to implement the PES program proposed, and 3) to examine the feasibility and validity of the index framework by conducting a case study. The index framework measures quantities of ecosystem services currently supplied, improvement of ecosystem services anticipated from the proposed management activities, and real implementing costs of the program. The total scores from the case study vary from 301 to 501 for site 1, Goesan-gun and 273 to 460 for site 2, Pyeongchang-gun, respectively, indicating that total index score - measurement of cost-effectiveness - can be varied by the levels of management and real cost even if the scores from ecosystem service indicator group are the same. The index framework which can locate a cost-effective program has significant policy implication given the budget constraints in biodiversity/ecosystem services policy arena.

본 논문은 산림부문을 대상으로 국내 적용 가능한 생태계서비스지불제 유형 및 구성요소를 설계하고 지불제 이행을 위한 지수체계를 개발하는 한편 사례분석을 통하여 지수체계의 적용 가능성을 검토하였다. 지수체계는 3개의 지표그룹 즉, 생태계서비스 공급량 현황, 산림관리계획 수립으로 인해 예상되는 생태계서비스 개선정도, 프로그램 이행을 위한 실질비용 측정을 위한 지표그룹으로 구성하였다. 사례분석 결과 생태계서비스 공급량에 있어 동일한 측정값을 나타낼지라도 관리요소 및 실질비용 시나리오에 따라 생태계서비스 종합점수는 최저 301점에서 최고 501점까지(충북 괴산군 사례지역 1의 경우) 또는 최저 273점에서 최고 460점(강원 평창군 사례지역 2의 경우)까지 차별화되는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 토지소유자가 어떤 수준의 관리계획과 모니터링을 선택했는지에 따라 단위비용당 종합점수로 표현되는 비용효과성이 다양하게 나타날 수 있음을 예시하는 결과로서, 지불제 이행 시 생태계서비스 점수만을 고려할 경우와 비용효과성 측면을 동시에 고려할 경우 상이한 결론 도출이 가능하다는 것을 시사하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, S., Lee, C., and Ryu, G. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services on genetic reserve forests in Korea. Journal of Korean Forest Society 97(3): 305-315.
  2. Ahn, S. 2010. Designing payments for forest environmental services in Korea. Korean Journal of Forest Economics 17(1): 25-37.
  3. Ahn, S., Rho, P., Koh, S.I., Chun, D.J., and Kwan, Y.H. 2013. Developing index for implementation of payments for ecosystem services in Korea. Research Report 2013-07 of Korea Environment Institute, Seoul, Korea. pp. 128.
  4. Chang, C.S. and Shin, Y.K. 2007. The public opinions on the compensation with the non-timber value of forest. Korean Journal of Forest Economics 15(1): 9-21.
  5. Choung, H.L., Song, J.S., Lee, K.S., Kim, I.T., Kim, J.H., Yang, K.C., and Chun, Y.M. 2006. Review on the conservation value and assessment criteria of vegetation. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 15(5): 339-355.
  6. DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment). 2008. Bush Tender: Rethinking investment for native vegetation outcomes, the application of auctions for securing private land management agreements, State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. pp. 47.
  7. Eigenraam, M., Barker, P., Brown, M., Knight, R., and Whitten, S. 2006. Conservation value index technical report. Forest Conservation Fund, Assessment Methodology Advisory Panel, Department of Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. pp. 52.
  8. Famiglietti, J.S., Rudnicki, J.W., and Rodell, M. 1998. Variability in surface moisture content along a hill slope transect: Rattlesnake Hill, Texas. Journal of Hydrology, 210(1-4): 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00187-5
  9. Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 10(3): 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133027
  10. Karousakis, K. 2012. Enhancing the effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services (PES). Science for Environment Policy. Thematic issue 30, European Commission. pp. 12.
  11. KFRI (Korea Forest Research Institute). 2007. Preliminary study on the payments for forest ecosystem services. Research Report 07-27 of KFRI, Seoul, Korea. pp. 147.
  12. KFRI (Korea Forest Research Institute). 2010. Quantitative study for estimating the function of public benefits derived from forest resources. Research Report 10-26 of KFRI, Seoul, Korea. pp. 205.
  13. KFRI (Korea Forest Research Institute). 2011. Mapping the classification type of forest functions for private forests. Research Report 11-02 of KFRI, Seoul, Korea. pp. 164.
  14. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2007a. A study on introducing payments for environmental services on genetic reserve forests in Korea. Daejeon, Korea. pp. 244.
  15. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2007b. A study on payment for environmental services on water reserve forests in Korea. Daejeon, Korea. pp. 144.
  16. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2008. A study on payment for environmental services on scenic view protected areas in Korea. Daejeon, Korea. pp. 207.
  17. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2009. A study on the legislative proposal on payment of forest environmental services. Daejeon, Korea. pp. 228.
  18. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2010. Report on public attitude towards forest systems. Daejeon, Korea. pp. 139.
  19. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2013. Manual of standard forest management plans. Ordinance 1150 of the Korea Forest Services. Daejeon, Korea. pp. 115.
  20. MA (Millenium Assessment). 2005. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
  21. ME (Ministry of Environment). 2009. Ordinances of natural environmental census methodology and evaluation criteria on conservation priority. Ordinance 822 of the Ministry of Environment. Ministry of Environment, Kwachon, Korea. pp. 9.
  22. ME (Ministry of Environment). 2014. Management status on Biodiversity Reserve and Management Program. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. pp. 32.
  23. Morrison, M.L., Marcot, B., and Mannan, W. 2012. Wildlifehabitat relationships: concepts and applications. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 493.
  24. OECD. 2010. Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services., OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Publishing, Paris. pp. 194.
  25. Park, Y.K., Roh, H.J., Jeon, J.H., and Kim, H.H. 2010. Analyzing and type and priority order of forest functions for private forests. Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 44(6): 51-59.
  26. Rho, P. 2009. Use of GIS to develop a multi-variate habitat model for the Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in mountainous region of Korea. Journal of Ecology and Environment 32(4): 229-236. https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2009.32.4.229
  27. TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. edited by Kumar, P., Earthscan, London. pp. 456.
  28. Wilson, E.O. and MacArthur, R.H. 1967. The Theory of Island Biography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. pp. 224.