DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessing and Mapping the Aesthetic Value of Bukhansan National Park Using Geotagged Images

지오태그 이미지를 활용한 북한산국립공원의 경관미 평가 및 맵핑

  • Kim, Jee-Young (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Son, Yong-Hoon (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 김지영 (서울대학교 협동과정조경학) ;
  • 손용훈 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과)
  • Received : 2021.07.22
  • Accepted : 2021.08.20
  • Published : 2021.09.02

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to present a method to assess the landscape aesthetic value of Bukhansan National Park using geotagged images that have been shared on social media sites. The method presented in this study consisted mainly of collecting geotagged image data, identifying landscape images, and analyzing the cumulative visibility by applying a target probability index. Ramblr is an application that supports outdoor activities with many users in Korea, from which a total of 110,954 geotagged images for Bukhansan National Park were collected and used to assess the landscape aesthetics. The collected geotagged images were interpreted using the Google Vision API, and were subsequently were divided into 11 landscape image types and 9 non-landscape image types through cluster analysis. As a result of analyzing the landscape types of Bukhansan National Park based on the extracted landscape images, landscape types related to topographical characteristics, such as peaks and mountain ranges, accounted for the largest portion, and forest landscapes, foliage landscapes, and waterscapes were also commonly found as major landscape types. In the derived landscape aesthetic value map, the higher the elevation and slope, the higher the overall landscape aesthetic value, according to the proportion and characteristics of these major landscape types. However, high landscape aesthetic values were also confirmed in some areas of lowlands with gentle slopes. In addition, the Bukhansan area was evaluated to have higher landscape aesthetics than the Dobongsan area. Despite the high elevation and slope, the Dobongsan area had a relatively low landscape aesthetic value. This shows that the aesthetic value of the landscape is strongly related not only to the physical environment but also to the recreational activities of visitors who are viewing the scenery. In this way, the landscape aesthetics assessment using the cumulative visibility of geotagged images is expected to be useful for planning and managing the landscape of Bukhansan National Park in the future, through allowing the geographical understanding of the landscape values based on people's perceptions and the identification of the regional deviations.

본 연구의 목적은 소셜미디어에서 공유되는 지오태그 이미지를 활용하여 이용자가 인지하는 북한산국립공원의 경관미를 평가하는 방법을 제시하는 것이다. 연구에서 제시된 평가 방법은 크게 지오태그 이미지 데이터의 수집, 경관 이미지 식별, 조망대상 확률 지수를 적용한 누적가시도 분석의 과정으로 진행되었다. 본 연구에서 데이터로 사용한 램블러(Ramblr)는 국내에서 많은 이용자를 보유하고 있는 아웃도어 활동 지원 어플리케이션으로, 이로부터 북한산국립공원에 대한 총 110,954장의 지오태그 이미지를 수집하여 경관미 평가에 활용하였다. 수집된 지오태그 이미지들은 Google Vision API를 활용해 이미지의 내용을 해석하였으며, 이후 군집분석을 통해서 전체 수집한 사진을 총 11개의 경관이미지 유형과 9개의 비경관이미지 유형으로 구분하였다. 추출한 경관이미지를 바탕으로 북한산국립공원의 경관 유형을 분석한 결과, 봉우리나 산맥과 같은 지형적 특성과 관련한 이미지 유형이 가장 많은 비중을 차지하였으며, 그 외 임내 경관, 단풍경관, 수경관이 주요한 경관 유형으로 발견되었다. 도출된 경관미 평가맵에서는 이러한 주요 경관 유형의 비중과 특성에 따라 표고 및 경사가 높을수록 전반적으로 높은 경관미를 보였다. 그러나 일부 저지대 및 완경사를 지닌 진입지역에서도 높은 경관미가 확인되었다. 또한 북한산 지역이 도봉산 지역보다 경관미가 높게 평가되었으며, 도봉산 지역의 경우에는 표고 및 경사가 높음에도 불구하고, 상대적으로 낮은 경관미가 확인되었다. 이는 경관미가 물리적인 환경 조건뿐만 아니라, 경관을 조망하는 탐방객들의 휴양 활동과도 크게 관계하고 있음을 보여준다. 이처럼 지오태그 이미지의 누적 가시도를 활용한 경관미 평가는 사람들의 인식에 기반한 경관적 가치를 지리적으로 이해하고, 그 편차를 식별할 수 있도록 함으로써 향후 북한산국립공원의 경관 계획 및 관리에 유용하게 활용될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cheng, X., S. Van Damme, L. Li and P. Uyttenhove(2019) Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services 37: 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
  2. Daniel, T. C., A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, O. Aznar, J. W. Boyd, K. M. A. Chan, R. Costanza, T. Elmqvist, C. G. Flint, P. H. Gobster, A. Gret-Regamey, R. Lave, S. Muhar, M. Penker, R. G. Ribe, T. Schauppenlehner, T. Sikor, I. Soloviy, M. Spierenburg, K. Taczanowska, J. Tam and A. von der Dunk(2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(23): 8812-8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
  3. Han, B. H., S. H. Hong, C. S. Kim, J. E. Jang and M. Y. Lee(2011) The visual evaluation and categorization of the landscape resource: In case of Seoraksan National Park. Proceedings of the Korean Society of Environment and Ecology Conference 21(1): 120-123.
  4. Kang, M. H. and S. I. Kim(2010) Development of evaluation indices for forest landscape. Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science 99(6): 777-784.
  5. Kim, S. K., W. H. Cho and S. B. Im(1999) Landscape evaluation of rural stream based on the factor analysis of visual preference. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning 5(1): 35-44.
  6. Lee, G. G. and C. W. Park(2012) A zoning method for forest landscape management by visual quality assessment. Journal of Korean Forest Society 101(1): 148-157.
  7. Lee, K. C., Y. H. Son and S. H. Lee(2016) Exploring the characteristics of scenic landscapes of between the Dulle-gil and the uphill trail in Bukhansan National Park. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning 22(3): 21-31. https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2016.22.3.021
  8. Lee, S. H.(2016) A study on inventory an grade evaluation of the visual landscape reouce in Mt. Chiak National Park 44(4): 57-65.
  9. Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martin-lopez, N. Fagerholm, C. Bieling and T. Plieninger(2018) Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecolgical Indicators 94(2): 74-86.
  10. Retka, J., P. Jepson, R. J. Ladle, A. C. M. Malhado, F. A. S. Vieira, I. C. Normande, C. N. Souza, C. N. Bragagnolo and R. A. Correia(2019) Assessing cultural ecosystem services of a large marine protected area through social media photographs. Ocean and Coastal Management 176: 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.018
  11. Richards, D. R. and D. A. Friess(2015) A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecological Indicators 53: 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.034
  12. Riechers, M., J. Barkmann and T. Tscharntke(2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services. 17: 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007
  13. Tenerelli, P., U. Demsar and S. Luque(2016) Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecological Indicators 64: 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.042
  14. Yoshimura, N. and T. Hiura(2017) Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido. Ecosystem Services 24: 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.009
  15. TEEB(2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, ed. P, Kumar. Earthscan: London and Washington.
  16. Ramblr, https://www.ramblr.com