Figure 1. Process of Ecosystem assets research and analysis
Figure 2. Relative score of 37 ecosystem services indicators from Ansan ecosystem assets(n=47)
Figure 3. Variability in delivery of Ecosystem services (Abbreviation: Fresh water:FW, Food:FD, Fuel:FU, Fiber:FI, Genetic resources:GR, matural medicines:MM, Ornamental resources:OR, Aggregate:AG, Waste disposal:WD, Energy harvesting (natural air and water flows):EH, Air quality regulation:AQ, Climate regulation-local:CRL, Climate regulation-globa:CRG, Water regulation:WR, Flood hazard regulation:FH, Storm hazard regulation:SH, Pest regulation:PR, Disease:DI, Disease Mediation:DM, Erosion regualtion:ER, Water purification:WP, Pollination:PL, Salinity regulation:SR, Fire regulation:FR, Noise and visual buffering:NV, Cultural heritage:CH, Recreation and tourism:RT, Aesthetic value:AS, Spiritual and religious value:SR, Inspirational value:IN, Social relations:SC, Educational and research:ED, Soil formation:SF, Primary production:PP, Nutrient cycling:NC, Water recycling:WC, Provision of habitat:HB)
Figure 4. Distribution of Ansan Ecosystem assets by two main factor
Table 1. Result of component analysis from Ansan Ecosystem assets
Table 2. Second Ecosystem assets factor Group of Ansan (Safety regulation)
Table 3. First Ecosystem assets factor Group of Ansan (Ecological education)
Table 4. List of Ecosystem asset by factor group
References
- Bae MK. 2017. A Study on Environmental Conservation Plan Based on Spatialization Method in Local Governments. Korea Environmental Policy and Administration Society. 25(2): 25-36 https://doi.org/10.15301/jepa.2017.25.2.25
- Bloch, F., Jackson, M. O., & Tebaldi, P. 2017. Centrality measures in networks. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2749124
- Bracken, L and Oughton, E. 2013. Making sense of policy implementation the construction and uses of ecpertise and evidence in managing freshwater environmnets. Environmental Science & Policy. 30, 10-18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.010
- Brown, C., King, S., Ling, M., Bowles-Newark, N., Ingwall-King, L., Wilson, L., ... & Vause, J. 2016. Natural capital assessments at the national and sub-national level. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
- Cui B., Zhang, Z., Lei, X. 2012. Implementation of diversified ecological networks to strenghten wetland conservation. Clean-Soil Air Water. 40(10)
- Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. 2008.. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change. 18(4): 598- 606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
- Dickie, I., Cryle, P., & Maskell, L. 2014. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 1: Developing the evidence base for a Natural Capital Asset Check: What characteristics should we understand in order to improve environmental appraisal and natural income accounts. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK.
- Dickson, B., Blaney, R. Miles, L., Regan, E., van Soesbergen, A., Vaananen, E., Blyth, S., Harfoot, M., Martin, C.S., McOwen, C., Newbold, T., van Bochove, J. 2014. Towards a global map of natural capital: Key ecosystem assets. UNEP. Nairobi. Kenya.
- Fish, R.D., Ioris, A.A.R., Watson, N.M. 2010. Integrating water and agricultural management: collaborative governance for a complex policy problem. Science of the Total Environment. 408, 5623-5630 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.010
- Frazier, T., Thompson, C., Dezzani, R., & Butsick. 2013. Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Applied Geography. 42, 95-107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.004
- Georgina M.Mace, Ken Norris and Alstair H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and Ecosystem services: A Multilayered relationship. Cell. 27(1)19-26
- Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. Report to the European Environmental Agency. EEA Framework Contract no: EEA/IEA/09/003.
- Horlick-Jone and Sime. 2004. Living on the border: knowledges, risk, and transdisciplinarity. Futures. 36(4), 441-456 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.006
- Kim B, Lee JH, Kwon HS. 2017. Recent Ecological Asset Research Trends using Keyword Network Analysis. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment. 26(5): 303-314. https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2017.26.5.303
- Kwon ST, 2018, Urban Revitalization and citizen. Journal of Environmental Studies 61: 23-27.(in Korean)
- Lee JH and Son YH. 2016. The recent research wave in ecotourism research using keyword network analysis. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning. 22(2): 45-55. https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2016.22.2.045
- MA(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC 5
- McInnes, R. J., and Everard, M. 2017. Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ecosystem services. 25, 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.024
- Petts, Owens&Bulkely. 2008. Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environment. Geoforum. 39(2), 5963-601
- R. Costanza, R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. ONeill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. vandenBelt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature. 387(1997): pp. 253-260 https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
- R.S. de Groot, M.A. Wilson, R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 41, pp. 393-408 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C., and Peterson, G. D. 2016. Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale-lessons from Quebec. Ecology and Society. 21(3).
- TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. Progress Press. Malta. 209pp.
- Tobias Borger, Anne Bohnke-Henrichs, Caroline Hattam, Joanna Piwowarczyk, Femke Schasfoort, Melanie C. Austen. 2018. The role of interdisciplinay collaboration for state preference methods to value marine environmental goods and ecosystem services, Estuarin. Coastal and Shelf Science. (210) 140-151
Cited by
- 습지보호지역을 대상으로 한 문화서비스 평가 연구 vol.22, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2019.22.6.139