DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Efficient Conservation and Management of Waterside Parks by Promoting Ecology Awareness of Visitors

이용객 생태 인식 증진을 통한 수변공원의 효율적인 보전 및 관리

  • Choi, Jong Yun (Division of Ecological Assessment, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Ki (Division of Ecological Assessment, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Jeong-Cheol (Division of Ecological Assessment, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Yun, Hak Jong (Division of Ecological Assessment, National Institute of Ecology)
  • 최종윤 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실) ;
  • 김성기 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실) ;
  • 김정철 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실) ;
  • 윤종학 (국립생태원 생태평가연구실)
  • Received : 2019.01.24
  • Accepted : 2019.03.22
  • Published : 2019.04.30

Abstract

This study evaluated the ecological value of waterside parks by investigating the animal distribution and ecological feature in 92 waterside parks and analyzed the change of ecological awareness by users and non-users of waterside parks through ecological education and promotion based on the investigation results. The result confirmed inhabitation of various animals including 9 endangered species (Pernis ptilorhynchus orientalis, Accipiter soloensis, Falco subbuteo, Charadrius placidus, Felis bengalensis euptilura, Lutra lutra, Kaloula borealis, Polyphylla laticollis manchurica, and Leptalina unicolor) in waterside parks. Although waterside parks were constructed to be hydrophilic areas for human use, some of them with high natural characteristics are valued as biological habitat. We investigated user status in 5 areas (Daejeon, Sejong, Cheongju, Kongju, and Buyeo) located at Guem river basin to evaluate people's perception of waterside parks and carried out the ecological education and promotion based on the investigation result. The survey of 200 people showed that there were more users of waterside parks than non-users and that people in their 40's showed the highest use rate. The use frequency of waterside parks located in Daejeon and Cheongju was lower than in other areas (Sejong, Kongju, and Buyeo). We considered it was because Daejeon and Cheongju were urban areas and had relatively more leisure areas such as sports facilities and cafe than other areas, and thus the residents had a lower reliance on waterside parks. Moreover, users used waterside parks more frequently when they were nearer to users' residence. It is because most users perceived waterside parks as the leisure sports facility and thus preferred them to be within walking distance. The users' perception of waterside parks as the ecological space "to be preserved" increased after the ecological education and promotion. The change of the perception was higher among users (80%) than non-users (38%). Therefore, ecological education and promotion were potentially more effective to people who user waterside parks and thus had a higher understanding of the characteristics and specification. In conclusion, 1) although waterside parks were constructed for human use, some parts had high ecological value for the distribution of endangered species and outstanding natural beauty, and 2) it is necessary to change the perception of waterside parks from the hydrophilic attribute to the conservation attribute. Such change of perception would contribute to establishing waterside parks that feature both hydrophilic and conservation attributes in the management or upgrading plan of waterside parks in the future.

본 연구는 1) 수변공원에 서식하는 생물상 및 생태현황 조사를 통해 수변공원의 생태적 가치를 평가하고, 2) 조사결과를 기반으로 한 생태교육 및 홍보를 통해 수변공원에 대한 이용 및 비이용객의 생태적 인식 변화를 분석하였다. 수변공원 92개소를 대상으로 생물상 조사를 수행한 결과, 수변공원에서는 멸종위기종 9종(벌매, 붉은배새매, 새호리기, 흰목물 떼새, 삵, 수달, 맹꽁이, 수염풍뎅이, 은줄팔랑나비)을 포함하여 다양한 생물의 서식이 확인되었다. 수변공원은 비록 인간의 이용을 위한 친수적인 성향으로 조성되었지만, 일부 자연성이 높은 지역은 생물서식처로 가치가 높은 것으로 평가되었다. 수변공원에 대한 인식 정도를 평가하기 위해, 금강유역 내 5개 지역(대전, 세종, 청주, 공주, 부여)에서 이용객 현황을 조사하고, 생태교육 및 홍보를 실시하였다. 총 200명을 대상으로 이용객 현황을 조사한 결과, 생태공원에 대한 이용객이 비이용객보다 더 많은 비율을 차지하였으며, 연령별로는 40대가 가장 높은 이용률을 나타냈다. 대전이나 청주 등의 지역에서 수변공원의 이용 빈도는 다른 지역보다 낮은 것으로 조사되었다. 대전이나 청주는 도심구간으로 수변공원 외에도 체육시설이나 카페 등의 여가시설이 상대적으로 많아 수변공원에 대한 의존도가 타 지역보다 낮은 것으로 사료된다. 이용객은 이용대상 수변공원과 실제 거주지간 거리가 가까울수록 이용 빈도가 증가하는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 이용객 대부분이 수변공원을 '생활체육공간'으로 인식하고 있기 때문에 도보가 가능한 거리가 아니면 활용 빈도가 낮은 것으로 보인다. 이러한 수변공원에 대한 인식은 생태교육 및 홍보 후 '보전'적인 측면으로 인식하는 비율이 증가하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 인식 변화는 이용객(80%)이 비이용객(38%)보다 더 높은 것으로 분석되었다. 이를 볼 때, 생태교육 및 홍보는 수변공원을 직접적으로 이용하여 특성이나 제원 등에 대한 이해도가 높은 이용객에게 더 효과적인 것으로 판단된다. 결과적으로, 1) 수변공원은 비록 친수적인 성향을 가지고 조성되었으나, 일부 지역은 멸종위기종의 서식하는 등 생물서식처로서 가치가 높은 것으로 평가되며, 2) 이를 볼 때, 수변공원에 대한 인식은 친수적인 성향만이 강조된 부분에서 보전적인 측면으로 강화가 필요할 것으로 사료된다. 이러한 인식 변화는 추후 수변공원에 대한 관리나 정비계획 수립 시 친수와 보전적인 측면이 공존하는 수변공원 조성에 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Avgar, T., G. Street and J.M. Fryxell(2013) On the adaptive benefits of mammal migration. Can. J. Zool. 92(6): 481-490. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2013-0076
  2. Baldwin, R.F.(2009) Assessing threats to pool-breeding amphibian habitat in an urbanizing landscape. Biol. Conserv. 142(8): 1628-1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.039
  3. Bayley, P.B.(1991) The flood pulse advantage and the restoration of river‐floodplain systems. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 6: 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450060203
  4. Blomquist, S.M. and M.L. Hunter Jr(2010) A multi-scale assessment of amphibian habitat selection: wood frog response to timber harvesting. Ecoscience 17(3): 251-264. https://doi.org/10.2980/17-3-3316
  5. Fahrig, L.(2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34(1): 487-515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
  6. Friend, G.R. and K.M. Cellier(1990) Wetland herpetofauna of Kakadu National Park, Australia: seasonal richness trends, habitat preferences and the effects of feral ungulates. J. Trop. Ecol. 6(2): 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400004235
  7. Gillies, C.S. and C.C.S. Clair(2010) Functional responses in habitat selection by tropical birds moving through fragmented forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 47(1): 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01756.x
  8. P.E.(1969) Habitat specificity in three sympatric species of Ameiva (Reptilia: Teiidae). Ecology 50(3): 476-481. https://doi.org/10.2307/1933903
  9. Jeong, K.S., D.K. Kim and G.J. Joo(2007) Delayed influence of dam storage and discharge on the determination of seasonal proliferations of Microcystis aeruginosa and Stephanodiscus hantzschii in a regulated river system of the lower Nakdong River (South Korea). Water Res. 41(6): 1269-1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.11.054
  10. Jonasson, S., A. Michelsen, I.K. Schmidt, E.V. Nielsen, and T.V. Callaghan(1996). Microbial biomass C, N and P in two arctic soils and responses to addition of NPK fertilizer and sugar: implications for plant nutrient uptake. Oecologia 106: 507-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00329709
  11. Kim, J.H.(2013) Utilization of the river esplanade and restoration plan for naturality in Seoul city. The Seoul Institute, 163pp.
  12. Ko, D.W.(2006) Moderating effects of fear appeal advertising on the relationship between environmental attitude and behavior of tourists. TOSOK 30: 139-160.
  13. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs(2009) Master Plan of the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, Seoul.
  14. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs(2014) Report on survey and evaluation of four river project, Seoul.
  15. Shaver, G.R., J.A. Laundre, A.E. Giblin, and K.J. Nadelhoffer(1996). Changes in live plant biomass, primary production, and species composition along a riverside toposequence in arctic Alaska, USA. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 28: 363-379. https://doi.org/10.2307/1552116
  16. Sin, J.K. and K.J. Cho(2000) Seasonal Dynamics and Pollution Status of the Water Quality in the Kum River Reservoir. Korea J. Limnol. 33: 251-259.
  17. Thomaz, S.M. and E.R.D. Cunha(2010) The role of macrophytes in habitat structuring in aquatic ecosystems: methods of measurement, causes and consequences on animal assemblages' composition and biodiversity. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 22: 218-236. https://doi.org/10.4322/actalb.02202011
  18. Thompson, M.B.(1993). Estimate of the population structure of the estern water dragon, Physignathus lesueurii (Reptilia: Agamidae), along riverside habitat. Wildl. Res. 20: 613-619. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9930613
  19. Valladares, G., A. Salvo and L. Cagnolo(2006) Habitat fragmentation effects on trophic processes of insect‐plant food webs. Conserv. Biol. 20(1): 212-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00337.x
  20. Ward, J.(1998). Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns, disturbance regimes, and aquatic conservation. Biol. Conserve. 83: 269-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00083-9