Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회지)

Korean Society of Environment and Ecology (한국환경생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Habitat Quality by the Type of Nature Parks

자연공원 종류별 서식지질 비교

  • Jung-Eun Jang (Exhibition Preservation Team, Nat'l. Botanic Garden of Korea native plant) ;
  • Min-Tai Kim (Landscape Architecture program, Virginia Tech) ;
  • Hye-Yeon Kwon (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Pusan Univ.) ;
  • Hae-Seon Shin (Wetland Center, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Byeong-Hyeok Yu (Social Value & Innovation Office, Korea National Park Service) ;
  • Sang-Cheol Lee (Applied Ecology Lab., Pusan Nat'l Univ.) ;
  • Song-Hyun Choi (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Pusan Nat'l Univ.)
  • 장정은 (국립한국자생식물원 전시보전팀 ) ;
  • 김민태 (버지니아텍 조경학과 ) ;
  • 권혜연 (부산대학교 대학원 조경학과 ) ;
  • 신해선 (국립생태원 습지센터 ) ;
  • 유병혁 (국립공원공단 사회가치혁신실) ;
  • 이상철 (부산대학교 응용생태연구실) ;
  • 최송현 (부산대학교 조경학과 )
  • Received : 2022.08.24
  • Accepted : 2022.10.26
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Awareness of the ecological value and importance of protected areas has increased as climate change accelerates, and there is a need for research on ecosystem services provided by nature. The natural park, which is a representative protected area in Korea, has a system of national parks, provincial parks, and county parks. National parks are managed systematically by the Korea National Park Service, but local governments manage provincial parks and county parks. There may be the same hierarchical differences in naturalness (habitat quality) depending on the hierarchy of the natural parks, but it has not been verified. To identify differences, we examined 22 mountain-type natural parks using habitat quality using the INVEST model developed by Stanford University. The analysis of the habitat quality, regardless of the type and area of the natural park, showed that it was higher in the order of Taebaeksan National Park (0.89), Juwangsan National Park (0.87), Woongseokbong County Park (0.86), and Gayasan National Park (0.85). The larger the area, the higher the value of habitat quality. A comparison of natural parks with similar areas showed that the habitat quality of national parks was higher than that of provincial parks and parks. On the other hand, the average habitat quality of county parks was 0.83±0.02, which was 0.05 higher than that of provincial parks at 0.78±0.03. Furthermore, the higher the proportion of forest areas within the natural park, the higher the habitat quality. The results confirmed that the naturalness of natural parks was independent of their hierarchy and that there are differences in naturalness depending on land use, land coverage, and park management.

보호지역의 생태적 가치와 중요성에 대한 인식이 증가함에 따라 자연이 제공하는 생태계서비스에 관한 연구의 필요성이 요구되고 있다. 우리나라의 대표적인 보호지역인 자연공원은 국립공원, 도립공원, 군립공원의 체계를 가지고 있다. 국립공원은 국립공원공단에서 체계적으로 관리를 하고 있으나 도립공원과 군립공원은 지방자체단체가 관리하고 있다. 자연공원의 위계에 따라 자연성 또한 같은 위계적 차이가 있을 것으로 생각되나 이에 대한 검증은 이뤄지지 않았다. 이에 대한 차이를 알아보기 위하여 자연공원 중 산악형 22개소를 대상으로 InVEST 모델 중 서식지질(habitat quality)을 이용하여 차이를 알아보았다. 자연공원의 종류와 면적에 관계없이 서식지질을 분석한 결과 태백산국립공원(0.89), 주왕산국립공원(0.87), 웅석봉군립공원(0.86), 가야산국립공원(0.85) 순으로 높게 나타났다. 서식지질은 면적인 넓을수록 높은 값을 나타내었다. 면적이 유사한 자연공원을 대상으로 분석한 결과 국립공원의 서식지질은 도립공원과 군립공원에 비해 높았다. 반면 군립공원의 서식지질 평균은 0.83±0.02으로 도립공원의 서식지질 평균 0.78±0.03보다 0.05 더 높게 나타났다. 아울러 자연공원내에서 산림지역 비율이 높을수록 서식지질 또한 비례하여 높게 나타났다. 이상의 결과를 종합하면, 자연공원의 자연성은 자연공원의 위계와 같지 않고 토지이용, 토지피복 그리고 공원관리 등에 따라 자연성에 차이가 있음을 확인하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 과제는 2021학년도 부산대학교 교수국외장기파견 지원비에 의하여 연구되었음

References

  1. Alkemade, R., M.V. Oorschot, L. Miles, C. Nellemann, M. Bakkenes and B.T. Brink(2009) GLOBIO3: A Framework to Investigate Options for Reducing Global Terrestrial Biodiversity Loss. Ecosystems 12: 374-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5
  2. Chapin III, F.S., E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds, D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. SalaI, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack and S. Diaz(2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012241
  3. Choi, J.Y. and S.D. Lee(2018) Evaluation of Ecosystem Service for Distribution of Korean fir using InVEST Model. J. Environ Impact Assess 27(2): 181-193. (in Korean with English abstract)
  4. Choi, J.Y., Y.S. Lee and S.D. Lee(2019) A Study on the Ecosystem Services Value Assessment According to City Development: In Case of the Busan Eco-Delta City Development. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 28(5): 427-439. (in Korean with English abstract)
  5. Choi, S.H., B.H. Yu, C. Chin, H.S. Shin and J.E. Jang(2020) Habitat Quality Evaluation of InVEST Model Using QGIS: For National Parks. Kor. J. Env. Eco. 1: 41-42. (in Korean)
  6. Chu, L., T. Sun, T. Wang, Z. Li and C. Cai(2018) Evolution and Prediction of Landscape Pattern and Habitat Quality Based on CA-Markov and InVEST Model in Hubei Section of Three Gorges Reservoir Area(TGRA). Journal of Sustainability 10(11): 3854.
  7. Cooper, K.M., S.G. Bolam, A.L. Downie and J. Barry(2019) Biological-based habitat classification approaches promote cost-efficient monitoring: An example using seabed assemblage. Journal of Applied Ecology 56(5): 1085-1098. (in English) https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13381
  8. Dudley, N.(Ed.)(2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp.
  9. Gao, J., F. Li, H. Gao, C. Zhou and X. Zhang(2017) The impact of land-use change on water-related ecosystem services: A study of the Guishui River Basin, Beijing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 163: 148-155.
  10. Global Land Cover(GLC) 2000(2020) www.usna.edu/Users/oceano/pguth/md_help/html/glc2000.htm
  11. Heo, H.Y.(2020) A Review on the International Trends for Establishing Post-2020 National Targets Relevant to Protected Areas. Kor. J. Env. Eco. 34(6): 601-609. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2020.34.6.601
  12. Hwang, E.J. and J.K. Chun(2017) Institutionalization of the Value of Ecosystem services. Kor. J. Env. Eco. 31(3): 337-343. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2017.31.3.337
  13. Jang, J.E., H.Y. Kwon, H.S. Shin, S.C. Lee, B.H. Yu, J. Jang and S.H. Choi(2022) Habitat Quality Analysis and Evaluation of InVEST Model Using QGIS: Conducted in 21 National Parks of Korea. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 36(1): 102-111. https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2022.36.1.102
  14. Ki, J.(2015) A Study of A Favorable Direction in Urban Planning Around a National Park in Korea. Journal of Government Administration 11: 107-115.
  15. Kim, T., C. Song, W.K. Lee, M. Kim, C.H. Lee, S.W. Jeon and J. Kim(2015) Habitat Quality Valuation Using InVEST Model in Jeju Island. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 18(5): 1-11. (in Korean with English abstract)
  16. Korea Database on Protected Areas(KDPA)(2022) www.kdpa.kr
  17. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation(2020) https://www.moleg.go.kr/
  18. Korea National Park Research Institute(KNPRI)(2019) A Study on the Value Evaluation of Ecosystem Service in National Park-Seoraksan, Deogyusan, Mudeungsan, Byeonsanbando-. 352pp. (in Korean)
  19. Korea National Park Research Institute(KNPRI)(2021) A Study on the Value Evaluation of Ecosystem Service in National Park-Gyeryongsan, Naejangsan, Odaesan, Taebaeksan-. (in Korean)
  20. Kwon, H.Y., J.E. Jang, H.S. Shin, B.H. Yu, S.C. Lee and S.H. Choi(2022) Habitat Quality Analysis and an Evaluation of Gajisan Provincial Park Ecosystem Service Using InVEST Model. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 36(3): 318-326. https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2022.36.3.318
  21. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MEA)(2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis, Washington (D.C.): World Resources Institute, 300pp.
  22. Ministry of Environment(ME)(2015) Guidelines for creating ecological and natural maps. (in Korean)
  23. Murray, B.C.(2016) Ecosystem Service Concepts in Practice. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques 42(S1): S24-S31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/canapublpolianal.42.s1.s24 https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2015-022
  24. Natural Capital Project(2020) https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/
  25. Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. Cameron, K.M. Chan, G.C. Daily, J. Goldstein, P.M. Kareiva, E. Lonsdorf, R. Naidoo, T.H. Ricketts and M.R Shaw(2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity Conservation, Commodity Production, and Tradeoffs at landscape scales. Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1): 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023
  26. Oh, C.O., H.Y. Jung and W.Y. Joo(2019) Assessing the Economic Values of Temple Forests for the implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services. Korea Environment Institute 27(1): 217-241. (in Korean with English abstract)
  27. Polasky, S., E. Nelson, D. Pennington and K.A. Johnson(2011) The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics 48(2): 219-242.
  28. Sharp, R., H.T. Tallis, T. Ricketts, A.D. Guerry, S.A. Wood, R.C. Kramer and K. Vigersto(2014) InVEST user's guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford.
  29. Terrado, M., S. Sabater, B.C. Kramer, L. Mandle, G. Ziv and V. Acuna(2016) Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. Science of the Total Environment 540: 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.064
  30. Xu, L., S.S. Chen, Y. Xu, G. Li and W. Su(2019) Impacts of Land-Use Change on Habitat Quality during 1985-2015 in the Taihu Lake Basin. Journal of Sustainability 11(13): 1-21.
  31. Zhong, L. and J. Wang(2017) Evaluation on effect of land consolidation on habitat quality based on InVEST model. Journal of Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 33(1): 250-255.