한국조경학회지 (Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture)

  • 제50권4호
  • /
  • Pages.37-52
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1225-1755(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-9566(eISSN)
한국조경학회 (The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

토픽모델링을 활용한 도시림의 문화서비스 수요 특성 분석

A Study on the Demand for Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Forests Using Topic Modeling

  • 김지영 (서울대학교 협동과정조경학) ;
  • 손용훈 (서울대학교 환경대학원 환경조경학과)
  • Kim, Jee-Young (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University) ;
  • Son, Yong-Hoon (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2022.06.07
  • 심사 : 2022.07.21
  • 발행 : 2022.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 북한산국립공원에 대한 네이버 블로그 포스트 및 LDA 토픽모델링을 활용하여 이용자 인식 및 경험 가치에 기반한 도시림의 문화서비스 수요 특성을 분석하고 공간적 평가 가능성을 검토하는 것이다. 연구에서는 블로그 포스트에 대한 토픽모델링의 결과를 바탕으로 북한산국립공원 문화서비스와의 관련성 여부와 공간평가 지표로서 활용 가능성 여부를 고려한 검토과정을 거쳐, 최종적으로 도시림의 문화서비스 공간평가 지표를 도출하였다. 구체적으로 토픽분석을 통해 도출된 총 21개의 토픽을 해석하고, 생태계서비스에 대한 MA(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)의 문화서비스 분류체계에 기반하여 총 13개의 문화서비스 관련 토픽을 도출하였다. 이는 전체 문서의 72.7%에 해당하였다. 토픽의 내용으로는 '산행 휴양 활동' 유형(23.7%), '관광·편익시설과 연계한 간접이용가치'(12.4%), '일상적 간접이용가치'(10.7%), '영감 활동'(11.2%), '계절성이 있는 휴양 활동'(6.2%), '자연 감상 및 정적 휴양 활동'(4.3%), '문화유산 가치'(3.7%), 와 관련한 7개 유형의 문화서비스로 해석하였다. 다음으로 13개의 문화서비스 관련 토픽에 대해, 도시림으로서의 특성과 공간적 평가 가능성을 검토하여 최종적으로 도시림 문화서비스에 대한 총 8개 평가지표를 도출하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 기존의 문화서비스 평가에서 많이 사용되던 MA의 생태계서비스 분류체계가 현장을 반영하지 못하는 한계를 극복하고자 국내 사정에 맞는 도시림의 문화서비스의 평가지표를 범주화했다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 또한 연구에서는 대용량의 이용자 인식 및 경험 자료를 활용하여 문화서비스의 수요를 해석하고 도출하는 방법론을 제시했다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the demand for cultural ecosystem services in urban forests based on user perception and experience value by using Naver blog posts and LDA topic modeling. Bukhansan National Park was used to analyze and review the feasibility of spatial assessments. Based on the results of topic modeling from blog posts, a review process was conducted considering the relevance of Bukhansan National Park's cultural services and its suitability as a spatial assessment case, and finally, an index for the spatial assessment of urban forest's cultural service was derived. Specifically, 21 topics derived through topic analysis were interpreted, and 13 topics related to cultural ecosystem services were derived based on the MA(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)'s classification system for ecosystem services. 72.7% of all documents reviewed had data deemed useful for this study. The contents of the topic fell into one of the seven types of cultural services related to "mountainous recreation activities" (23.7%), "indirect use value linked to tourism and convenience facilities" (12.4%), "inspirational activities" (11.2%), "seasonal recreation activities" (6.2%), "natural appreciation and static recreation activities" (3.7%). Next, for the 13 cultural service topics derived from data gathered about Bukhansan National Park, the possibility of spatial assessment of the characteristics of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests was reviewed, and a total of 8 cultural service indicators were derived. The MA's cultural service classification system for ecosystem services, which was widely used in previous studies, has limitations in that it does not reflect the actual user demand of urban forests, but it is meaningful in that it categorizes cultural service indicators suitable for domestic circumstances. In addition, the study is significant as it presented a methodology to interpret and derive the demand for cultural services using a large amount of user awareness and experience data.

키워드

과제정보

본 연구는 주저자의 박사학위논문 중 일부를 발전시킨 것으로 정부(과학기술정보통신부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행되었음(No. 2021R1A2C109486012).

참고문헌

  1. Abualhagag, A. and I. Valanszki(2020) Overview Analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Mapping Indicators and Categories Classification.
  2. Arslan, E. S. and O. K. Orucu(2021) MaxEnt modelling of the potential distribution areas of cultural ecosystem services using social media data and GIS. Environment, Development and Sustainability 23(2): 2655-2667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00692-3
  3. Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann(1966) The social construction of reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
  4. Brown, G. and N. Fagerholm(2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services 13: 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
  5. Brown, G., D. Pullar and V. H. Hausner(2016) An empirical evaluation of spatial value transfer methods for identifying cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 69: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.053
  6. Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov and F. Muller(2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21: 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
  7. Casalegno, S., R. Inger, C. DeSilvey and K. J. Gaston(2013) Spatial covariance between aesthetic value and other ecosystem services. PloS one 8(6): e68437.
  8. Clemente, P., M. Calvache, P. Antunes, R. Santos, J. O. Cerdeira and M. J. Martins(2019) Combining social media photographs and species distribution models to map cultural ecosystem services: The case of a Natural Park in Portugal. Ecological Indicators 96: 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.043
  9. Dai, P., S. Zhang, Z. Chen, Y. Gong and H. Hou(2019) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban parks based on social network data. Sustainability 11(19): 5386.
  10. Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, H. A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, T. H. Ricketts, J. Salzman and R. Shallenberger(2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1): 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025
  11. Gee, K. and B. Burkhard(2010) Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind farming: A case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological Complexity 7(3): 349-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.02.008
  12. Ghahramani, M., N. J. Galle, C. Ratti and F. Pilla(2021) Tales of a city: Sentiment analysis of urban green space in Dublin. Cities 119: 103395.
  13. Haines-Young, R. and M. Potschin(2012) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). European Environment Agency 33: 107.
  14. Hausmann, A., T. Toivonen, C. Fink, V. Heikinheimo, R. Kulkarni, H. Tenkanen and E. Di Minin(2020) Understanding sentiment of national park visitors from social media data. People and Nature 2(3): 750-760. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10130
  15. Honey-Roses, J. and L. H. Pendleton(2013) A Demand Driven Research Agenda for Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services.
  16. Karasov, O., S. Heremans, M. Kulvik, A. Domnich and I. Chervanyov(2020) On how crowdsourced data and landscape organisation metrics can facilitate the mapping of cultural ecosystem services: An Estonian case study. Land 9(5): 158.
  17. Kim, J. and Y. Son(2021) Assessing and mapping cultural ecosystem services of an urban forest based on narratives from blog posts. Ecological Indicators 129: 107983.
  18. La Rosa, D., M. Spyra and L. Inostroza(2016) Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: A review. Ecological Indicators 61: 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028
  19. Lee, H., B. Seo, T. Koellner and S. Lautenbach(2019) Mapping cultural ecosystem services 2.0-potential and shortcomings from unlabeled crowd sourced images. Ecological Indicators 96: 505-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.035
  20. Lee, J. H., H. J. Park, I. Kim and H. S. Kwon(2020) Analysis of cultural ecosystem services using text mining of residents' opinions. Ecological Indicators 115: 106368.
  21. Lozano, M. G., J. Schreiber and J. Brynielsson(2017) Tracking geographical locations using a geo-aware topic model for analyzing social media data. Decision Support Systems, 99: 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.05.006
  22. Martinez-Harms, M. J. and P. Balvanera(2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 8(1-2): 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792
  23. Milcu, A. I., J. Hanspach, D. Abson and J. Fischer(2013) Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society 18(3): 44.
  24. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: General Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  25. Nahuelhual, L., A. Carmona, P. Laterra, J. Barrena and M. Aguayo(2014) A mapping approach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: The case of agriculture heritage in Southern Chile. Ecological Indicators 40: 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.005
  26. Norton, L. R., H. Inwood, A. Crowe and A. Baker(2012) Trialling a method to quantify the 'cultural services' of the English landscape using countryside survey data. Land Use Policy 29(2): 449-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.002
  27. 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. Ecological Indicators 94: 74-86.
  28. Paracchini, M. L., G. Zulian, L. Kopperoinen, J. Maes, J. P. Schagner, M. Termansen, M. Zandersen, M. Perez-Soba, P. A. Scholefield and G. Bidoglio(2014) Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45: 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018
  29. Plieninger, T., S. Dijks, E. Oteros-Rozas and C. Bieling(2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33: 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
  30. 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
  31. Richards, D. R. and B. Tuncer(2018) Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosystem Services 31: 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004
  32. 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
  33. Runge, C. A., V. H. Hausner, R. M. Daigle and C. A. Monz(2020) Pan-arctic analysis of cultural ecosystem services using social media and automated content analysis. Environmental Research Communications 2(7): 075001.
  34. Ryfield, F., D. Cabana, J. Brannigan and T. Crowe(2019) Conceptualizing 'sense of place' in cultural ecosystem services: A framework for interdisciplinary research. Ecosystem Services 36: 100907.
  35. Schaich, H., C. Bieling and T. Plieninger(2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 19(4): 269-277. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.19.4.9
  36. Schirpke, U., F. Timmermann, U. Tappeiner and E. Tasser(2016) Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecological Indicators 69: 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.001
  37. Song, Y., R. Wang, J. Fernandez and D. Li(2021) Investigating sense of place of the Las Vegas Strip using online reviews and machine learning approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning 205: 103956.
  38. Su, S., S. He, C. Sun, H. Zhang, L. Hu and M. Kang(2021) Do landscape amenities impact private housing rental prices? A hierarchical hedonic modeling approach based on semantic and sentimental analysis of online housing advertisements across five Chinese megacities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 58: 126968.
  39. 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
  40. Troy, A. and M. A. Wilson(2006) Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60(2): 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007
  41. Vejre, H., F. S. Jensen and B. J. Thorsen(2010) Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecological Complexity 7(3): 338-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005
  42. Wallace, K. J.(2007) Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139(3-4): 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015
  43. Wood, S. A., A. D. Guerry, J. M. Silver and M. Lacayo(2013) Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Scientific Reports 3(1): 1-7.
  44. 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