Ecology and Resilient Infrastructure

Korean Society of Ecology and Infrastructure Engineering (응용생태공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the National Park Ecosystem Health Assessment and an Advanced Assessment System

국립공원 생태계 건강성 평가 시스템 개선 연구

  • Myeong, Hyeon Ho (Plant Conservation Center, Korea National Park Research Institute, Korea National Park Service) ;
  • Kim, Jeong Eun (Ecosystem Research Division, Korea National Park Research Institute, Korea National Park Service) ;
  • Kim, Hye Ri (Ecosystem Research Division, Korea National Park Research Institute, Korea National Park Service) ;
  • Oh, Jang Geun (Naejangsan Eco-learning Institute)
  • 명현호 (국립공원공단 국립공원연구원 식물보전센터) ;
  • 김정은 (국립공원공단 국립공원연구원 생태조사부) ;
  • 김혜리 (국립공원공단 국립공원연구원 생태조사부) ;
  • 오장근 (국립공원공단 내장산생태탐방원)
  • Received : 2021.03.02
  • Accepted : 2021.03.18
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In 2012, the National Park Service conducted an ecological health assessment to efficiently preserve and manage the ecosystem. The need for improving pre-existing management indicators was recognized from the revised Natural Park Act because, while the indicators of the existing evaluation system focused on endangered species, ecosystem disturbance, diversity, water quality (BOD, DO), and habitat fragmentation, they did not reflect the lack of indicators for marine ecological assessment, policy changes, and the time demands. The evaluation results comprised a five-point grading system, which made the analysis of immediate changes, difficult. Therefore, the benthic pollution index (BPI) and habitat restoration indicators were added to improve the evaluation system. The National Park was assessed using 10 classifications, however, only four classifications were evaluated. The ratings were divided into five states, and ten classes were presented as pictograms. The assessment results showed a similar trend as the indicators were improved, increasing from level 3 to level 5. However, the results of the Wolaksan National Park after improvement in the indicators were lower than that before the improvement, whereas, for the Juwangsan National Park, it was higher. This study aims at contributing to the scientific and systematic management of the national park ecosystem by improving the ecological health assessment system.

국립공원공단에서는 공원 자연 생태계의 효율적 보전·관리를 위해 2012년부터 생태계 건강성 평가를 실시하였다. 그러나 자연공원법 개정, 정책 변화, 관리 지표 부재에 따라 지표 개선의 필요성을 인식하였다. 특히 기존지표에서는 해양생태계평가 지표 부재, 정책변화와 시대적 요구를 반영하지 못하는 어려움이 있었다. 또한 기존 평가시스템은 멸종위기종, 생태계교란종, 종다양도, 수질 (BOD, DO), 서식지파편화 지표 등으로 생물종 중심의 비중이 높았다. 평가결과는 5등급 체계로 구성되어 각 지표에 대한 즉각적인 변화를 분석하기 어려웠다. 따라서, 평가시스템 개선을 통해 BPI와 서식지복원지표를 추가하였다. 종다양도는 4개 분류군을 대상으로만 평가하였으나, 10개 분류군으로 전체 공원을 평가하였다. 평가 등급은 5개 상태, 5 등급에서 5개 상태, 10 등급으로 세분화하여 픽토그램으로 제시하였다. 평가결과 개선 전과 전체적으로 유사한 경향성을 보였고, 3단계에서 5단계로 확대 되었다. 그러나 월악산국립공원은 개선 전 평가 결과보다 낮고, 주왕산국립공원은 높게 평가되었다. 본 연구는 생태계 건강성 평가 시스템 개선을 통해 국립공원 생태계의 과학적·체계적 관리에 기여하고자 한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 국립공원공단 국립공원연구원에서 실시한 "국립공원 생태계 건강성 평가 개선방안 연구"의 일환으로 수행되었습니다.

References

  1. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017. Canadian environmental sustainability indicators: Ecological integrity of national parks. Canada. pp. 1-17.
  2. Graham, C.H. and Hijimans, R.J. 2006. A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness, Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 578-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00257.x
  3. Hunter, J., Becker, A., Alabri, A., Van Ingen, C., and Abal, E. 2011. Using ontologies to relate resource management actions to environmental monitoring data in south east Queensland. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information System 2: 1-19.
  4. Kim, T.G. 2012. Assessment of species diversity in National park using GIS. Journal of National Park Research. 3: 22-26. (In Korean with English abstract)
  5. Korea National Park Service. 2016. Mid- and long-term integrated plans for restoring disturbed areas in national park (2017-2026). Korea National Park. Wonju. pp. 1-287.
  6. Korea National Park Service. 2019. Korea national park basic statistics. Korea National Park. Wonju. pp. 1-220.
  7. Mac Cluskie, M.C., Oakley, K., McDonald, T. and Wilder, D. 2005. Central Alaska network vital signs monitoring plan. National Park Service. Tennessee. United States. pp. 1-308.
  8. Ministry of Environment. 2007. Field survey to select survey areas for development of the aquatic ecosystem assessment and health conditions (Final report). National Institute of Environmental Research. Incheon. pp. 1-355.
  9. Ministry of Environment. 2011. Development of assessment technique of ecosystem health and system construction through the species diversity index in coastal dune ecosystem. Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute. Seoul. pp. 1-644. (in Korean)
  10. Ministry of Environment. 2014. Developing tools for assessing lake ecosystem integrity. Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute. Seoul. pp. 1-753. (in Korean with English abstract)
  11. Ministry of Science and Technology. 1995. Management technique for marine environmental protection: Marine environment assessment based on the benthic faunal communities. Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology. Ansan. pp. 1-330. (in Korean with English abstract)
  12. National Park Research Institute. 2014. Enhancement study of ecosystem health assessment on Korea national park. National Park Research Institute. Wonju. pp. 1-138. (in Korean)
  13. National Park Service. 2012. Guidance for designing and integrated monitoring program. Natural Resource Report. National Park Service. Fort Collins. Colorado. pp. 1-49.
  14. Oh, J.G., Won, H.J., and Myeong, H.H. 2016. A study on the method of ecosystem health assessment in National parks. Korean Journal of Environmental Ecology 49: 147-152. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.11614/KSL.2016.49.2.147
  15. Pielou, E.C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology 13: 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
  16. Yellowstone Center for Resources. 2018. The state of Yellowstone vital signs and select park resources. Yellow-stone Center for Resources. Yellowstone National Park. Wyoming. United States. pp. 1-59.