한국조경학회지 (Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture)

  • 제48권3호
  • /
  • Pages.12-21
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1225-1755(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-9566(eISSN)
한국조경학회 (The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

자연공원 지속가능성평가에 기반한 군립공원 지속가능성 영향요인 분석 - 경남권역 11개소 군립공원을 대상으로 -

Analysis of Sustainable Management Factors in County Parks Based on the Sustainability Evaluation Framework of Korea Nature Parks - Focus on the 11 County Parks in Gyeongsangnam-do -

  • Hong, Sukhwan (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Pusan National University) ;
  • Ahn, Rosa (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Pusan National University) ;
  • Tian, Wanting (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Pusan National University) ;
  • Heo, Hagyoung (Korea National Park Service, National Park Research Institute) ;
  • Pak, Junhou (Korea National Park Service, National Park Research Institute)
  • 투고 : 2020.04.06
  • 심사 : 2020.05.27
  • 발행 : 2020.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 경상남도에 소재한 군립공원을 대상으로 자연공원 지속가능성평가를 통해 관리효과성평가(MEE)를 실시하여 이를 바탕으로 군립공원의 지속가능한 관리를 도모하기 위한 영향요인을 도출하고자 하였다. 자연공원 지속가능성평가 진단표는 2016년 환경부에서 개발한 보호지역 관리효과성평가를 준용하여 소규모 자연공원에 응답할 수 있도록 보완한 평가표이며, 이를 바탕으로 공원이해관계자가 자가진단을 통해 자연공원의 전반적인 관리를 평가하도록 하였으며, 현장조사 및 인터뷰를 통해 이를 보완하였다. 경남권역 군립공원의 11개소 MEE결과를 살펴보면, 과반수의 군립공원에서 '자연생태적 가치(6개소)'를 주요 가치로 인식하고, '역사문화적 가치(4개소)', '여가휴양적 가치(1개소)'순으로 나타났다. 자연공원 관리의 위협요인으로는 '자연재해 및 환경요인(5개소)', '인위적 요인(3개소)'로 나타났으며, 군립공원 3개소에서는 관리를 저해하는 위협요인이 없다고 인지하고 있었다. 관리효과성평가 점수가 양호한 분야는 휴양가치상태, 역사 및 문화자원의 가치상태, 주요 자연자원 등이며, 미흡한 분야는 조사 및 연구프로그램, 멸종위기종 관리, 생태계 교란 동·식물 관리, 관리활동 모니터링 및 평가 수행이 지적되었다. 지속가능하게 관리에 영향을 미치는 지표를 도출하기 위해 관리효과성평가점수와 관리요인 간 회귀분석결과, 연간공원관리투입예산이 관리효과성평가점수와 통계적으로 유의미하였다. 이는 연간 자연공원관리예산의 적정한 집행이 현 시점에서 군립공원 관리에 가장 필요한 요소임을 의미한다. 향후 군립공원 관리계획 이행 시, 평가결과에서 도출된 미흡한 요인의 보완을 위한 예산확보가 시급한 것으로 판단되었다. 관리투입예산을 고려한다면 군립공원 관리의 효과를 높일 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

This study aims to implement the Sustainability Evaluation Framework of Korea Natural Parks to county parks in Gyeongsangnam-do, and to review the performance status of management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) and identify factors that influence the improvement of management effectiveness in protected areas. County park officers evaluated current management using this framework that was developed based on the MEE framework designed by the Korean Ministry of Environment. Among the principal values of county parks, 'natural and ecological' is indicated as the most important, followed by 'cultural and historic value' and 'leisure and recreation'. Natural disasters and climate change, visitor impact-inappropriate visitor behavior are indicated as current threats, and three county parks administrators viewed that there was no particular threat to their park. According to MEE results, the most effective management fields were 'State of cultural and historic value', 'State of leisure and recreational value', 'Current state of principal value'. The comparatively weaker fields were 'Threatened species management', 'Invasive species management', 'Management monitoring and evaluation'. The effects of sustainable management on county parks were analyzed through a regression analysis, and the influence of management factors reveal 'Annual budget', will impact attaining higher management scores. This study presents the current management information about county parks and provides support for the basis for the planning of county parks in Korea, suggesting the influencing factor.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bertzky, B., C. Corrigan, J. Kemsey, S. Kenney, C. Ravilious, C. Besancon and N. Burgess(2012) Protected planet report 2012: Tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK. p. 25.
  2. Cho, W.(2019) Evaluation on park planning of provincial parks among Korea natural parks. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 33(3): 321-332. https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2019.33.3.321
  3. Cho, W., S. D. Lee and J. O. Yoon(2017) Management status and system improvement plan of provincial and county park, Korea. Proceeding of the Conference on Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 2017(1): 57-58.
  4. Cook, G. T., P. L. Ascough, C. Bonsall, W. D. Hamilton, N. Russell, K. L. Sayle, E. M. Scott and J. M. Bownes(2015) Best practice methodology for 14C calibration of marine and mixed terrestrial/marine samples. Quaternary Geochronology 27: 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2015.02.024
  5. DeFries, R., A. Hansen, A. C. Newton and M. C. Hansen(2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications 15(1): 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5258
  6. Gray, C. L., S. L. L. Hill, T. Newbold, L. N. Hudson, L. Borger, S. Contu, A. J. Hoskins, S. Ferrier, A. Purvis and J. P. W. Scharlemann (2016) Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat Commun 7: 12306. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12306
  7. Heo, H. Y. and H. Kwon(2012) Review on the protected areas management effectiveness evaluation in Korea - Focus on the implementation status and results. The Journal of Korean institute of Forest Recreation 16(4): 41-57. https://doi.org/10.34272/forest.2012.16.4.005
  8. Heo, H. Y.(2006) Development of Evaluation Model of Management Effectiveness for Adaptive Management of Protected Areas. Ph. D. Dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul.
  9. Heo, H. Y., J. C. Kim, D. J. Lee, D. G. Cho, K. W. Sim and J. W. Kang(2017) A review on the results of management effectiveness evaluation: Focusing the protected areas established under the ministry of environment. Proceeding of the Conference on Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 2017(1): 21-22.
  10. Hockings, M.(2003) Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. BioScience 53 (9): 823-832. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;2
  11. Hockings, M., S. Stolton and N. Dudley(2000) Evaluating Effectiveness A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. WCPA and WWF/IUCN.
  12. Hong, J. P.(2017) A Study on Improving the National Protected Areas System-Focusing on Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures. Ph. D. Dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul.
  13. Hong, J. P. and Y. J. Shim(2018) Development of an integrated evaluation method for national protected areas based on aichi biodiversity target 11. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 21(1): 83-94. https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2018.21.1.83
  14. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge(2005) Benefits beyond boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).
  15. Juffe-Bignoli, D., N. D. Burgess, H. Bingham, E. M. S. Belle, M. G. De Lima, M. Deguignet, B. Bertzky, A. N. Milam, J. Martinez-Lopez, E. Lewis, A. Eassom, S. Wicander, J. Geldmann, A. Van Soesbergen, A. P. Arnell, B. O'Connor, S. Park, Y. N. Shi, F. S. Danks, B. MacSharry and N. Kingston(2014) Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.
  16. Laurance, W. F.(2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489(7415): 290-294. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11318
  17. Lee, S. D.(2016) Policy Proposal for Improving the Management of Provincial and County Parks. Policy report.
  18. Lee, W. H. and S. A. Abdullah(2019) Framework to develop a consolidated index model to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of protected areas doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.02.034
  19. Lester, S. E., B. S. Halpern, K. Grorud-Colvert, J. Lubchenco, B. I. Ruttenberg, S. D. Gaines and R. R. Warner(2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384: 33-46. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08029
  20. Leverington, F. and M. Hockings(2004) Evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management: The challenge of change. In 'Securing protected areas and ecosystem services in the face of global change.' Gland, Switzerland and Cambriage pp. 169-214.
  21. Ministry of Environment(2012) 제 2차 자연공원 기본계획(2013-2022). Research report to Ministry of Environment.
  22. Nassep, M., A. El-Sammak and R. Misak(2017) Lessons learned from the application of management effectiveness evaluation in Sabah Al-Ahmad Natural Reserve: Implications for conservation in Kuwait. Journal of Taibah University for Science 11(6) :868-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtusci.2017.04.001
  23. Shaharum, N. S. N., H. Z. M. Shafri, J. Gambo and F. A. Z. Abidin (2018) Mapping of krau wildlife reserve (KWR) protected area using landsat 8 and supervised classification algorithms doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2018.01.002
  24. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN(2016) Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEPWCMC: Cambridge, UK. and IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. pp. 7, 30, 40.
  25. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html