Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Perceived Naturalness of Urban Parks Using Hemeroby Index

헤메로비 등급(Hemeroby Index)을 활용한 도시공원의 인지된 자연성 평가

  • Kim, Do-Eun (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Son, Yong-Hoon (Graduate School of Environment Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 김도은 (서울대학교 환경대학원 협동과정 조경학) ;
  • 손용훈 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과)
  • Received : 2021.03.01
  • Accepted : 2021.04.05
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study evaluated the degree of interaction between the people and the environment using perceived naturalness measure. The seventh-grade index of Hemeroby was divided into subclasses of land cover according to degrees of human influence. The grade was standardized for each indicator to evaluate the current state of urban parks in Seoul by applying probability density function and weight. User evaluation was conducted on six distinctive parks selected. In the results, three implications were found between spatial evaluation according to the perceived naturalness. First, park users evaluated highly for the spaces such as broad-leaved forest, coniferous forest and mixed forest evaluated highly in the Hemeroby grade index. Park users generally recognized that various types of trees in the area had high naturalness. The density of trees is one of the factors in perceived naturalness. Second, water spaces were highly evaluated for naturalness in the Hemeroby grade index. However, the perceived naturalness of water spaces such as inland wetlands, pond and reservoir evaluated in various ways depending on environmental conditions around the park. Third, perceived naturalness is easily evaluated through vertical landscape elements such as trees rather than horizontal landscapes such as grassland. The perceived naturalness is similar to the naturalness evaluation using land cover. However the study found the perceived naturalness for a specific space was different from the Hemeroby index. Perceived naturalness by the user includes the content that the individual sees, hears, and experiences. Park users are usually structuring naturalness through evaluating the value of urban green spaces based on personal perception. Therefore there is no absolute standard criterion for evaluating the naturalness of urban green spaces. A deeper study is needed that considers user bundles or user groups with conflicting interests on the perceived naturalness in urban parks. These studies will be essential data on the direction of naturalness urban park service should provide.

본 논문은 개인과 환경의 상호작용 정도를 '인지된 자연성'의 척도로 평가하였다. 헤메로비 7등급(Hemeroby)을 인간의 영향의 정도에 따라 토지피복 세분류로 구분하고, 지표별로 등급을 표준화하여 확률밀도함수와 가중치 적용을 통해 서울시 도시공원의 현 상태를 평가하였다. 그중 특징 있는 공원 6곳을 선정하여 이용자 평가를 시행하여, 자연성 지표에 따른 공간적 평가와 이용자 인식 사이에 3가지의 시사점을 발견하였다. 첫째, 수목이 군락을 이루는 활엽수림·침엽수림·혼효림 등의 공간은 Hemeroby 등급 체계에서 자연성이 높은 공간으로 평가되며, 이용자에게도 일반적으로 자연성이 높은 공간으로 인식되고 있다. 이용자는 다양한 형태의 수목 공간이 자연성이 높다고 인식하였다. 수목의 울창함은 인지된 자연성에 있어서 하나의 요인이 된다. 둘째, Hemeroby 등급 지표에서 자연성이 높게 평가된 '내륙 습지' · '호소' 등 수공간의 인지된 자연성은 공원 주변의 환경 상태에 따라 편차가 크게 나타났다. 셋째, 초지 등과 같은 수평적 경관보다는 수직적인 경관 요소인 수목 등을 통해 자연성이 높게 평가되었다. 녹지공간을 이용하는 이용자의 자연성 인식은 토지피복을 활용한 자연성 평가와 일반적으로 유사하지만, 특정 공간에 대한 자연성 인식은 차이를 보였다. 이는 이용자가 인식하는 자연성에는 개인이 직접 보고, 듣고, 경험한 내용도 포함되기 때문이다. 이용자는 개인적 인식을 바탕으로 자연성을 구조화하고, 도시 녹지의 가치를 평가하는 특징이 있다. 따라서, 도시 녹지의 자연성 평가는 모든 이용자에게 통용되는 절대적인 기준이 존재할 수 없다. 향후 이용자 번들 혹은 도시공원의 인지된 자연에 대한 상충된 이해 그룹에 관한 연구가 필요하다. 이러한 연구는 각 도시공원 서비스가 제공하는 자연성에 대한 방향성 설정에 중요한 자료가 될 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Barrette, Martin, et al.(2014) Issues and solutions for intensive plantation silviculture in a context of ecosystem management. The Forestry Chronicle 90(6): 748-762. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2014-147
  2. Blume, H., and H. Sukopp(1976). Ecological significance of anthropogenic soil changes. Schr. R. Vegetationskde 10(1): 75.
  3. Carrus, G., R. Lafortezza, G. Colangelo, I. Dentamaro, M. Scopelliti and G. Sanesi(2013). Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. Psyecology 4(3): 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1174/217119713807749869
  4. Colak, A. H., I. D. Rotherham, and M. Calikoglu(2003). Combining 'naturalness concepts' with close-to-nature silviculture. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt Vereinigt Mit Tharandter Forstliches Jahrbuch 122(6): 421-431.
  5. De Vries, S., S. M. Van Dillen, P. P. Groenewegen, and P. Spreeuwenberg(2013) Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine 94(1): 26-33.
  6. Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. Borgstrom, J. Breuste, and T. Elmqvist(2014). A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43(4): 413-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
  7. Hartig, T., R. Mitchell, S. De Vries and H. Frumkin(2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35(1): 207-228.
  8. Hermes, J., C. Albert and C. von Haaren(2018) Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosystem Services 31(1) : 296-307.
  9. Hill, M. O., D. B. Roy and K. Thompson(2002). Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: Bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. Journal of Applied Ecology 39(5): 708-720. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00746.x
  10. Hoyle, H., A. Jorgensen and J. D. Hitchmough(2019). What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces. People and Nature 1(2): 167-180.
  11. Jalas, J.(1955). Hemerobe and hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Acta Soc Pro Fauna Flora Fenn 72(1) : 1-15.
  12. Junge, X., B. Schupbach, T. Walter, B. Schmid, and P. Lindemann-Matthies(2015). Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 133(1) : 67-77.
  13. Kerebel, A., N. Gelinas, S. Dery, B. Voigt, and A. Munson(2019). Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian networks: Conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting. Landscape and Urban Planning 185(1):258-271.
  14. Kim, I., S. Kim, J. Lee and H. Kwon(2019) Categorization of citiesin Gyeonggi-do using ecosystem service bundles. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 28(3): 201-214. https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2019.28.3.201
  15. Kim, Y. I., and Kim, J. G. (2011). Citizens' perception and satisfaction for urban parks and greens: A case study of Anyang city, Bucheon city and Uijeongbu city in Korea. Journal of Korea Planners Association, 46(1), 157-170.
  16. Kowarik, I. (1988). Zum Einfluss des Menschen auf Flora und Vegetation. Theoretische Konzepte und ein Quantifizierungsansatz am Beispiel von Berlin (West). Berlin. Schriftenreihe des Fachbereichs Landschaftsentwicklung der TU Berlin Berlin 56(1): 280.
  17. Landuyt, D., S. Broekx, R. D'hondt, G. Engelen, J. Aertsens and P. L. Goethals(2013). A review of Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem service modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software 46(1): 1-11.
  18. Lovell, R., B. W. Wheeler, S. L. Higgins, K. N. Irvine and M. H. Depledge(2014) A systematic review of the health and well-being benefits of biodiverse environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 17(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2013.856361
  19. Machado, A.(2004) An index of naturalness. Journal for Nature Conservation 12(2): 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2003.12.002
  20. Marselle, M. R., Irvine, K. N., Lorenzo-Arribas, A., and Warber, S. L. (2016). Does perceived restorativeness mediate the effects of perceived biodiversity and perceived naturalness on emotional well-being following group walks in nature?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46(1) : 217-232.
  21. Michel, A. K. and S. Winter(2009) Tree microhabitat structures as indicators of biodiversity in Douglas-fir forests of different stand ages and management histories in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 257(6): 1453-1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.027
  22. Moon, C. H. (2001). A study on the spatial characteristics of urban parks in Seoul through the analysis of decisive factors about degree of users' satisfaction. Journal of Geographic and Environmental Education, 9(1), 118-122.
  23. Ode, A., G. Fry, M. S. Tveit, P. Messager and D. Miller(2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1): 375-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
  24. Peterseil, J., T. Wrbka, C. Plutzar, I. Schmitzberger, A. Kiss, E. Szerencsits, and H. Beissmann(2004). Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes-the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy, 21(3): 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.011
  25. Rudis er, J., E. Tasser and U. Tappeiner(2012). Distance to nature-A new biodiversity relevant environmental indicator set at the landscape level. Ecological Indicators 15(1): 208-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.027
  26. Sang, A. O., Knez, I., Gunnarsson, B., and Hedblom, M. (2016). The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18(1): 268-276.
  27. Steinhardt, U., Herzog, F., Lausch, A., Mul er, E., and Lehmann, S. (1999). Hemeroby index for landscape monitoring and evaluation. Environmental indices, system analysis approach, 237-254.
  28. Sukopp, H. (1972). Wandel von Flora und Vegetation in Mitteleuropa unter dem Einfluβ des Menschen. Berichte Landwirtschaft 50(1), 112-139.
  29. Tveit, M. S. (2009) Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; A comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management 90(9): 2882-2888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021
  30. Tveit, M., A. Ode and G. Fry(2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31(3): 229-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
  31. Van Dillen, S. M., de Vries, S., Groenewegen, P. P. and Spreeuwenberg, P. (2012). Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: adding quality to quantity. J Epidemiol Community Health, 66(6) : e8-e8.
  32. Van der Jagt, A. P., Smith, M., Ambrose-Oji, B., Konijnendijk, C. C., Giannico, V., Haase, D., and Cvejic, R. (2019). Co-creating urban green infrastructure connecting people and nature: A guiding framework and approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 233(1): 757-767.
  33. Walz, U. and C. Stein(2014) Indicators of hemeroby for the monitoring of landscapes in Germany. Journal for Nature Conservation 22(3): 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.01.007
  34. Winter, S. (2012) Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry 85(2): 293-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cps004
  35. Wrbka, T., K. H. Erb, N. B. Schulz, , Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., and Haberl, H. (2004). Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21(3): 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.012
  36. Seong, B. H., and Choi, Y. S. (2016). Analysis on the influencing relationship between motivation, perceived value, satisfaction and behavior intention of ecological experiences: focused on differences by ecological experience infrastructure. Journal of Tourism Studies, 28(3):55-78.
  37. Standard Korean Dictionary, dictionary definition of artificial(人爲的).
  38. Standard Korean Dictionary, dictionary definition of nature(自然).
  39. Standard Korean Dictionary, dictionary definition of natural(自然的).