환경영향평가 (Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment)

한국환경영향평가학회 (Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

홍수조절 생태계 계정 도입을 위한 전국 단위 시범 평가

Pilot Evaluation for the Introduction of Ecosystem Accounting for Flood Control

  • 이태호 (국립생태원 생태계서비스팀) ;
  • 문희진 (국립생태원 생태계서비스팀) ;
  • 천금성 (국립생태원 생태계서비스팀) ;
  • 김정인 (국립생태원 생태계서비스팀)
  • Tae-Ho Lee (Ecosystem Service team, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Hee-Jin Moon (Ecosystem Service team, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Gumsung Cheon (Ecosystem Service team, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Jung-In Kim (Ecosystem Service team, National Institute of Ecology)
  • 투고 : 2023.11.03
  • 심사 : 2023.12.14
  • 발행 : 2023.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

생태계서비스 계정은 생태계 공급 기능과 수요, 그리고 그 사이에서 발생하는 실제 서비스 흐름을 측정해야 한다. 흐름을 측정하기 위해서는 공급과 수요 관계를 정의해야 하며, 복잡한 연결 관계를 객관화 할 수 있는 방법론이 필요하다. 국내에서는 생태계서비스에 대한 연구가 다양하게 진행되어 왔으나, 생태계서비스 계정화에 관한 연구는 부족하다. 본 연구의 목적은 환경경제통합계정(SEEA)의 실험적 생태계계정(EEA)에서 연구된 EU 방법론을 적용하여 홍수조절 생태계서비스를 평가하고 이를 토대로 생태계 계정 도입 방안을 모색하는데 있다. 연구수행을 위해 생태계의 유출량 보유 잠재력, 홍수조절에 대한 사회·경제적 수요, 그리고 그 사이의 관계로부터 형성되는 실제 서비스 혜택 흐름을 공간 기반으로 모델링하고 정량화하였다. 홍수조절 생태계서비스 실제 흐름을 산정한 결과, 국내 전체 서비스량은 165,595ha로 산출되었으며 많은 부분이 농경지에 집중되고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 향후 국내 홍수조절 서비스 계정 정밀화 도입을 위해서는 토지피복도와 같은 핵심 공간자료가 지속해서 구축 관리되어야 하며, 국가, 지역, 유역 등 다양한 공간 범위에서 적용 가능한 입력자료 및 방법론에 대한 연구가 필요할 것으로 보인다.

Ecosystem service accounting must measure ecosystem supply functions, demand, and the actual service flows that occur between them. In order to measure flows, supply and demand relationships must be defined, and a methodology that can objectify complex connections is needed. Although various studies on ecosystem services have been conducted in Korea, but researches on accounting for ecosystem services are not enough. The purpose of this study is to evaluate flood control ecosystem services by applying the EU methodology studied in the Experimental Ecosystem Account (EEA) of System of Environmental Economy Account (SEEA) and explore ways to introduce ecosystem account. To conduct the study, the ecosystem's runoff retention potential, social and economic demand for flood control, and actual service benefit flows formed from the relationships between them were modeled and quantified on a spatial basis. As a result of calculating the actual flow of flood control ecosystem services, the total domestic service amount was calculated to be 165,595 (ha), and it was confirmed that much of it was concentrated in agricultural land. In order to account for domestic flood control services in the future, key spatial data such as land cover maps must be continuously established and managed, and researches on input data and methodologies applicable to various spatial scopes such as national, regional, and unit watersheds are expected to be necessary.

키워드

과제정보

본 연구는 국립생태원 2023년 생태계서비스 평가 기반 정책 결정 지원 체계 수립('23)(NIE-고육연구-2023-03)의 지원을 받아 수행되었습니다.

참고문헌

  1. Barbedo J, Miguez MG, Horst D, Faria Marins M. 2014. Enhancing ecosystem services for flood mitigation: a conservation strategy for peri-urban landscapes?. Ecology and Society. 19(2).
  2. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Muller F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators. 21: 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
  3. Burkhard B, Maes J. 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services Pensoft Publishers.
  4. Cho HJ, O JH, Nam BH, Jung KT. 2004. A study on the determination of SCS-CN using GIS, Journal of KOSGIS. 12(1): 39-44. [Korean Literature]
  5. Crossman ND, Nedkov S, Brander L. 2019. Water flow regulation for mitigating river and coastal flooding.
  6. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics. 68(3): 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
  7. Geijzendorffer IR, Martin-Lopez B, Roche PK. 2015. Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments. Ecological Indicators. 52: 320-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016
  8. Huang M, Gallichand J, Wang Z, Goulet M. 2006. A modification to the soil conservation service curve number method for steep slopes in the Loess Plateau of China. Hydrological Processes. 20(3): 579-589. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5925
  9. Jeong SK, Ban YU, Lee TH. 2023. Ecological System Service Factors for Decision-making Support for Urban Flood Migration Planning in Cheong-ju. Journal of KIEAE. 23(3): 51-56. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.12813/kieae.2023.23.3.051
  10. Jung KH, Jung SJ, Son YK, Hong SY. 2007. Classification of Hydrologic Soil Group of Korean Soils, Rural Development Administration (RDA). [Korean Literature]
  11. Kim JG, Lim KJ, Park YS, Heo SG, Park JH, Kim KS, Choi JD. 2007. The effect of slope-based curve number adjustment on direct runoff estimation by L-THIA. Journal of Korean Society on Water Quality. 23(6): 897-905. [Korean Literature]
  12. Lee TH, Cheon GS, Kwon HS. 2022. Evaluation of Flood Regulation Service of Urban Ecosystem Using InVEST model. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology. 25(6): 51-64. [Korean Literature]
  13. Ministry of Environment. 2019. Standard Guidelines for Flood Estimation. [Korean Literature]
  14. Moon GW, Yoo JY, Kim TW. 2014. Comparing Calculation Techniques for Effective Rainfalls Using NRCS-CN Method: Focused on Introducing Weighted Average and Slope-based CN. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers. 34(4). [Korean Literature]
  15. Schaefer M, Goldman E, Bartuska AM, Sutton-Grier A, Lubchenco J. 2015. Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.. 112(24): 7383-7389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420500112
  16. Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH. 2014. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecological Indicators. 36: 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014
  17. Serna-Chavez HM, Schulp CJE, Bodegom PM, Bouten W, Verburg PH, Davidson MD. 2014. A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators. 39: 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.024
  18. Sutherland IJ, Villamagna AM, Dallaire CO, Bennett EM, Chin ATM, Yeung ACY, Lamothe KA, Tomscha SA, Cormier R. 2018. Undervalued and under pressure: a plea for greater attention toward regulating ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators. 94: 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.047
  19. Syrbe R-U, Walz U. 2012. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators. 21: 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
  20. Vallecillo S, Kakoulaki G, Notte AL, Feyen L, Dottori F, Maes J. 2020. Accounting for changes in flood control delivered by ecosystems at the EU level. Journal of Ecosystem Services. 44.
  21. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity. 15: 114-121.